Mocking The Poor

[mercyngrace]

Oh great!  So now when I give a buck to the poor schmuck on the corner I'm just showing what a selfish jerk I am.  And here I thought that King Benjamin said we should give freely without regard for the consequences of that giving.  I just gotta ask myself how those friggin' lillies get so beautifully adorned, ya know, the ones that don't work but just stand around all day.

 

Of course, silly me, I never thought to go to the salvation army or the local homeless shelter for spiritual guidance.

 

Minus the sarcasm, I'm with you and King Benjamin, Mark.

 

I give what I have and I don't happen to carry a spare shelter in my back pocket or an MRE in my purse. From time to time, I do carry food, water, and hand warmers, but not always. Further, it's becoming a nationwide problem that cities are outlawing providing food to the homeless in public places. Typically, that doesn't apply to handing food to a single person, but even so, it shows where we as a society are leaning.  

 

With the freezing weather in our area this week, local shelters have been filled to capacity with women and children. Homeless men and boys (teens) are out there. If I give a guy $20, he can rightfully go into McDonald's (unhealthy though it is) and buy cup after cup of coffee to pass the coldest hours without violating loitering statutes. And I've given folks money specifically for that. About a month ago, with all my kids in tow, we were leaving downtown and stopped at McD's as we exited the city just to use the restroom (it was the only parking spot for blocks!). A haggard and ill man approached me asking for food. He could have been high or intoxicated or just sick. I don't know. I had four kids with me and wasn't about to teach them that it was my place to interrogate him before purchasing his lunch. I invited him in with me, purchased his meal, and helped him get seated at a table making clear eye contact with the manager so there was no confusion that he was a "customer". Then I left with my family (none of whom got the fries they wanted). 

 

You give what you can. There are groups, like those mentioned in other comments who assess and address long term problems. 

 

I'm not them.  At this point in my life, I can just do triage. A meal or a couple of bucks is a band-aid. It won't end or create addiction but it will fill a stomach and buy a few hours of warmth.

[Senator]

 Luckily I just find smug patronizing fake teaching questions that actually betray the questioner's vast ignorance amusing so my annoyance is counteracted by the fact that I now get to giggle at your laughable pretentiousness.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2014 by Senator

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In my case, this is completely incorrect. The reason I, for one (I am not alone in this), want to abolish the minimum wage is for a variety of economic reasons, not the least of which is that minimum wage laws have the unintended negative consequence of, among several things, increasing unemployment among the lowest wage earners. Currently, unemployment for that demographic is disproportionately higher than the general population, and with the prospect of raising the minimum wage, this could further exacerbate the problem. I happen to be of the mind that a low-paying job is far better than no job, and as such I view minimum wage laws as making matter worse, rather than better, for the very demographic it was intended to help.

 

I also believe there is far better and functional way to increase wages for the poor and unskilled laborers without restricting freedoms (as with minimum wage), and this is by increasing the value to the market of those workers--improving their skills and productivity, etc.

 

It worked for me (most of the jobs I had in my childhood and youth weren't covered under minimum wage at the time).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am sure you know the history of why the MW was first instituted. It was not to help the poor. It was actually racist in its formation.

[bluebell]

Minus the sarcasm, I'm with you and King Benjamin, Mark.

 

I give what I have and I don't happen to carry a spare shelter in my back pocket or an MRE in my purse. From time to time, I do carry food, water, and hand warmers, but not always. Further, it's becoming a nationwide problem that cities are outlawing providing food to the homeless in public places. Typically, that doesn't apply to handing food to a single person, but even so, it shows where we as a society are leaning.  

 

With the freezing weather in our area this week, local shelters have been filled to capacity with women and children. Homeless men and boys (teens) are out there. If I give a guy $20, he can rightfully go into McDonald's (unhealthy though it is) and buy cup after cup of coffee to pass the coldest hours without violating loitering statutes. And I've given folks money specifically for that. About a month ago, with all my kids in tow, we were leaving downtown and stopped at McD's as we exited the city just to use the restroom (it was the only parking spot for blocks!). A haggard and ill man approached me asking for food. He could have been high or intoxicated or just sick. I don't know. I had four kids with me and wasn't about to teach them that it was my place to interrogate him before purchasing his lunch. I invited him in with me, purchased his meal, and helped him get seated at a table making clear eye contact with the manager so there was no confusion that he was a "customer". Then I left with my family (none of whom got the fries they wanted). 

 

You give what you can. There are groups, like those mentioned in other comments who assess and address long term problems. 

 

I'm not them.  At this point in my life, I can just do triage. A meal or a couple of bucks is a band-aid. It won't end or create addiction but it will fill a stomach and buy a few hours of warmth.

 

I don't disagree with anything that you've said, and I've done all these same things myself that you have described above.

 

But i do have to say that though our philosophies on this issue may be different, I also agree with King Benjamin.  I just disagree that King Benjamin said to give regardless of whether it does more harm than good (which is what Mark implied, when he said that King Benjamin taught to give regardless of the consequences).

 

Not that you meant to imply it, but i think it needs to be said that those who do things differently than you and Mark are not against King Benjamin, they (we) just interpret his teachings in a different way.   

Edited January 8, 2014 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

I am sure you know the history of why the MW was first instituted. It was not to help the poor. It was actually racist in its formation.

That is an oversimplification. While some endorsed the idea for its racial discrimination (South Africa in particular) to say it was the main reason it exists ignores many other proponents for the minimum wage and their rationale for it.

[Duncan]

All this hamburger talk reminds me it's cheap Whopper day at Burger King so thank you for the reminder!!

[mercyngrace]

Not that you meant to imply it, but i think it needs to be said that those who do things differently than you and Mark are not against King Benjamin, they (we) just interpret his teachings in a different way.   

 

I don't feel like I implied that at all.

 

I'm with Mark. And I'm with King Benjamin. And I'm with groups who work toward a long-term solution. It's not an either-or proposition in my mind. Seems like it might be for others, but it's definitely not for me. I chose to respond to Mark's comment because, as I wrote above, my current situation allows me to do triage, not long-term care. 

 

We need emergency rooms and we need rehabilitation centers. 

[bcuzbcuz]

Minus the sarcasm, I'm with you and King Benjamin, Mark.

 

I give what I have and I don't happen to carry a spare shelter in my back pocket or an MRE in my purse. From time to time, I do carry food, water, and hand warmers, but not always. Further, it's becoming a nationwide problem that cities are outlawing providing food to the homeless in public places. Typically, that doesn't apply to handing food to a single person, but even so, it shows where we as a society are leaning.  

 

With the freezing weather in our area this week, local shelters have been filled to capacity with women and children. Homeless men and boys (teens) are out there. If I give a guy $20, he can rightfully go into McDonald's (unhealthy though it is) and buy cup after cup of coffee to pass the coldest hours without violating loitering statutes. And I've given folks money specifically for that. About a month ago, with all my kids in tow, we were leaving downtown and stopped at McD's as we exited the city just to use the restroom (it was the only parking spot for blocks!). A haggard and ill man approached me asking for food. He could have been high or intoxicated or just sick. I don't know. I had four kids with me and wasn't about to teach them that it was my place to interrogate him before purchasing his lunch. I invited him in with me, purchased his meal, and helped him get seated at a table making clear eye contact with the manager so there was no confusion that he was a "customer". Then I left with my family (none of whom got the fries they wanted). 

 

You give what you can. There are groups, like those mentioned in other comments who assess and address long term problems. 

 

I'm not them.  At this point in my life, I can just do triage. A meal or a couple of bucks is a band-aid. It won't end or create addiction but it will fill a stomach and buy a few hours of warmth.

I'm touched by your thoughts and kindness to help those less fortunate. I don't think there are any easy solutions to the problem of poor in our societies, but am firmly convinced that putting in effort to help others is paramount in addressing the question. Probably neither your efforts nor mine nor those who do likewise will solve the problem but the alternative of doing nothing is egregious.

I, personally, never try to calculate or second guess what any donation I make ends up being spent on. It doesn't matter to me if it goes for a burger or beer. It does matter, though, what happens to me if I don't give of what I have. The less I give, the more I hoard. I become suspicious, greedy,, suspect of all and everything. My paranoia levels expand exponentially. I end up distrusting everyone around me.

The opposite is true when I share. It's not that I'm looking through rose coloured glasses, everything around me is, in fact, rosier. It's easier to smile and greet others cheerily. I give because it makes me feel good..

[bluebell]

I don't feel like I implied that at all.

I don't either.

But someone could make that conclusion (wrongly) which is why i felt it was good to clarify.

 

It's not an either-or proposition in my mind.

 

.

I doubt it's an either/or issue in anyone's mind, at least not anyone who's sincerely concerned about the poor.

 

We need emergency rooms and we need rehabilitation centers.

 

 

I completely agree.  

 

But even our emergency rooms should be concerned with the consequences of 'treating' the poor.  No emergency room Dr. worth anything will treat people regardless of the consequences to them or others.  If we are giving money to the poor regardless of the consequences, then our emergency room is broken. 

 

That's why your analogy of doing triage works so well.  When you triage people, you decide who you can treat immediately, and you also decide who you can't treat because their needs are beyond your ability.  Not giving certain people treatment in the moment is the concept of triage.  It's knowing who you can help, and also who to not help, at least not immediately or personally.

 

Naturally, the Spirit is key.

[thesometimesaint]

What a bunch of tripe.

Businesses are real and they are made of individuals. They get sick when they are not competitive or are producing unwanted products. They do get old but only if they adapt to the always changing market. They do die. It is call going out of business. It happens all the time.

 

And those taxes are NOT income taxes. If they own a delivery truck they pay taxes (to support the highways when they buy fuel) just like individuals do.

 

And that is what the free market causes.

 

IF ONLY! What we have today is not a free market but crony capitalism. And Obama is the worst crony capitalist we have ever has as president.

 

You keep saying that, but yet you CAN'T demonstrate how it happens.

 

Glad  to see you disagree with the law.

Corporate personhood

A rather significant legal fiction that is still in use today is corporate personhood (see corporation). In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. This was not a problem in the era before the Industrial Revolution, when the typical business venture was either a sole proprietorship or partnership; the owners were simply liable for the debts of the business. A feature of the corporation, however, is that the owners or shareholders enjoy limited liability: they are not liable for the debts of the company. In early lawsuits for breach of contract, the corporate defendants argued that they could not be sued as they were not persons; if this argument were to be accepted, the plaintiffs would be without recourse, since by statute the shareholders were not liable for the debts of the corporation. To resolve the issue, courts created an elegant solution: a corporation is a person, and could therefore sue and be sued, and thus be held accountable for its debts. This ensured that creditors would be able to seek relief in the courts should the corporation default on its obligations, encouraging banks to extend credit to the corporation. This simple fiction enabled corporations to acquire wealth, expand, and become the preferred organizational form for businesses of all sizes. Corporate personhood has come under criticism recently, as courts have extended other rights to the corporation beyond those necessary to ensure their liability for debts. Other commentators argue that corporate personhood is not a fiction anymore; it simply means that for some legal purposes, "person" has now a wider meaning than it had before and it still has in non-legal uses.

In jurisdictions using this fiction, it is important that the legal draftsman distinguishes between a "person" and a "natural person".

 

No. Corporations can not get sick. They can have a negative cash flow but that is not sickness except in your Romneyism world.

 

No They can't get to old to work, the oldest is some 1500 years old. Last I looked there aren't many people that live 1500 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies

 

They can't die. They simply stop doing business. Only in your Romneyism world is that dying.

 

To use your own example. Businesses write of the cost of fuel necessary to run their business.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/costs-can-write-off-business-3123.html

 

A free market doesn't cause a thing. You are putting the cart before the horse. We build infrastructure to facilitate commerce, not the other way around.

 

We have have never had a totally free market. The closest we ever came was during the Gilded Age.

 

I have plenty of disagreements with Mr. Obama's conduction of his presidency. Crony Capitalism is a big problem. But he is neither the originator nor the best(worst) practitioner of it.

 

McDonald's doesn't pay it employees enough to live off of. Its employees then must turn to the tax payers to eat, and get medical care or they do die.

[mercyngrace]

I appreciate the clarification, Bluebell. I just want to be clear I'm in favor of helping. Period.

 

So barring divine constraint, is it your understanding that the default scriptural position is to provide aid to the beggar? 

[why me]

With the freezing weather in our area this week, local shelters have been filled to capacity with women and children. Homeless men and boys (teens) are out there. If I give a guy $20, he can rightfully go into McDonald's (unhealthy though it is) and buy cup after cup of coffee to pass the coldest hours without violating loitering statutes. And I've given folks money specifically for that. About a month ago, with all my kids in tow, we were leaving downtown and stopped at McD's as we exited the city just to use the restroom (it was the only parking spot for blocks!). A haggard and ill man approached me asking for food. He could have been high or intoxicated or just sick. I don't know. I had four kids with me and wasn't about to teach them that it was my place to interrogate him before purchasing his lunch. I invited him in with me, purchased his meal, and helped him get seated at a table making clear eye contact with the manager so there was no confusion that he was a "customer". Then I left with my family (none of whom got the fries they wanted). 

 

Although I think that you did a wonderful thing I can not help but think that the person you helped is still poor and out of pocket. This is a systematic problem with the economic system that most Americans support. When people realize that capitalism is not working...how it creates poverty, and the leaves the poor in the poverty hole, the sooner the problem can be solved. In a rich society it should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. And since it does, the people who support such a system are also guilty of neglect. But it is very difficult to convince people of this because these people do not wish to be implicated in the problem.

Edited January 8, 2014 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

Minus the sarcasm, I'm with you and King Benjamin, Mark.

 

I give what I have and I don't happen to carry a spare shelter in my back pocket or an MRE in my purse. From time to time, I do carry food, water, and hand warmers, but not always. Further, it's becoming a nationwide problem that cities are outlawing providing food to the homeless in public places. Typically, that doesn't apply to handing food to a single person, but even so, it shows where we as a society are leaning.  

 

With the freezing weather in our area this week, local shelters have been filled to capacity with women and children. Homeless men and boys (teens) are out there. If I give a guy $20, he can rightfully go into McDonald's (unhealthy though it is) and buy cup after cup of coffee to pass the coldest hours without violating loitering statutes. And I've given folks money specifically for that. About a month ago, with all my kids in tow, we were leaving downtown and stopped at McD's as we exited the city just to use the restroom (it was the only parking spot for blocks!). A haggard and ill man approached me asking for food. He could have been high or intoxicated or just sick. I don't know. I had four kids with me and wasn't about to teach them that it was my place to interrogate him before purchasing his lunch. I invited him in with me, purchased his meal, and helped him get seated at a table making clear eye contact with the manager so there was no confusion that he was a "customer". Then I left with my family (none of whom got the fries they wanted). 

 

You give what you can. There are groups, like those mentioned in other comments who assess and address long term problems. 

 

I'm not them.  At this point in my life, I can just do triage. A meal or a couple of bucks is a band-aid. It won't end or create addiction but it will fill a stomach and buy a few hours of warmth.

 

[why me]

We also have many other types of poverty: alienation, marginalization, poor in spirit etc. How many people are marginalized in western society? Or how many people are poor in spirit because they are alone without work? Or just alone within a very individualized world? There are many types of poverty and it seems to be growing.

[wenglund]

Okay, not playing your silly and annoying little game where you pretend to be a brilliant economics professor because you took Microeconomics 101 as a required course or studied economics for five minutes on the internet and still remember the first thing you learned about perfect markets and ignored all the caveats and the hard stuff about why it rarely works that way in real life. Luckily I just find smug patronizing fake teaching questions that actually betray the questioner's vast ignorance amusing so my annoyance is counteracted by the fact that I now get to giggle at your laughable pretentiousness.

 

There is no call for such a hypocritical, hyper-defensive reaction to my perfectly reasonable and well-intended and instructive questions--which you have yet to answer. Unwarranted and blustering indignation degrades rather than elevates the discussion.

 

I admit your solution works.....for individuals. It will not work for everyone. The idea that everyone can improve their value will not work in our current economy. Maybe in another century technology will let us reach that point or we can reform society to where the grunt work is equally shared amongst all but right now everyone being highly skilled means some highly skilled people scrub toilets, clean hotel rooms, and inquire if you want fries with that. It's not a solution. It is at best a pipe dream that ignores economic reality and at worst it is a condescending "Screw you, I got mine" to those who are struggling while you pat yourself on the back for how brilliant you are to leave those losers in the dust.

 

First, I don't consider my solution to be universally guaranteed and immediate. Rather, I consider it the best of the set of imperfect solutions, and one considerably preferable to the counter-productive and freedom restricting option you favor.

 

Second, contrary to your bald assertions, my solution isn't a "pipe-dream," and it can and continues to work in our current economy as evinced by the fact that the vast majority of employed workers (I believe it is somewhere around 94%) receive wages that are higher than the minimum, and this in a way that doesn't exacerbate unemployment, among other unintended consequences, as would your freedom-restricting counter-solution.

 

Third, I have worked as a skilled laborer in unskilled labor jobs in the past, and I currently face the prospects of doing so again in the near future. So, I am not unsympathetic to the struggle. And, nothing I have said could in any reasonable sense be construed as suggesting, "Screw you, I got mine," or that I am somehow patting myself on the back. You are clearly projecting.

 

Fourth, my solution isn't just about expanding skill sets as employees. It is about increasing one's productivity and value in the market place. This can be done in ways other than doing "grunt work" (as you call it) for someone else.

 

Fifth, many of the laborers working at the unskilled jobs are illegal immigrants. There is a reason for this. Had you taken the time to perform the Econ 101 exercise I suggested, and had you gone a step further factoring in the economic effects of minimum wage on substitute labor (such as illegal labor), rather than spouting a stream of unwarranted and demonstrably false dismissals, you may have discovered that another unintended consequence of minimum wage laws besides restricting freedom and increasing unemployment, is that it encourages illegal immigration, thereby further displacing unskilled legal citizens and making matters worse for the demographic it was intended to help.

 

We could also use your freshmen level graph as a guide to our actions and we are back to the classical economists: "Let the surplus population die off to increase the value of labor and restore equilibrium". Basically you have either a monstrous solution or no solution at all.

 

No...what we have is you constructing a straw man suited to your limited grasp of the issue (I have no idea where you came up with the so-called "classical economist" since economic development is heavily reliant on population growth). My solution made no mention of "dying off." In fact, it is a solution which has promoted the greatest expansion of wealth in world history, and this during a baby boom and population growth, for heaven sake.

 

I'll stick with minimum wage unless we can find a way to make universal basic income or something else work. I do not think they work now and right now in our current social climate there is no way to implement them. I would rather ruin your perfect graph then live in a society where people can be expected to work 60 hours a week for $4/hour.

 

In other words, you are all about unwittingly promoting unemployment, encouraging illegal immigration, stoking inflation, and restricting freedoms, among a number of unintended consequences which negatively impact more so the poor, all because you are indignant against and dismissive of freshman level economics. 

 

With compassion like that, who needs enemies.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 8, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

I am sure you know the history of why the MW was first instituted. It was not to help the poor. It was actually racist in its formation.

 

In the US the MW was one of many steps established to help stop the US from further falling into the Great Depression and falling into Fascism or Communism.

[mercyngrace]

Although I think that you did a wonderful thing I can not help but think that the person you helped is still poor and out of pocket. This is a systematic problem with the economic system that most Americans support. When people realize that capitalism is not working...how it creates poverty, and the leaves the poor in the poverty hole, the sooner the problem can be solved. In a rich society it should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. And since it does, the people who support such a system are also guilty of neglect. But it is very difficult to convince people of this because these people do not wish to be implicated in the problem.

I hear you, Why Me, but as bcuzbcuz wrote, "the alternative of doing noting is egregious".

Hence, we do what we can. We have given serious consideration to turning our large spare room into a studio apartment where we could help once person at a time get back on his/her feet. Truth be told, my parents will likely inhabit it before our kids are gone and that shelter/studio may never happen. 

 

I'm also a fan of organizations like World Vision and Charity Water as well as those who give microloans around the world and we donate to them even though it may be like throwing starfish back into the sea after a very low tide. 

[mercyngrace]

We also have many other types of poverty: alienation, marginalization, poor in spirit etc. How many people are marginalized in western society? Or how many people are poor in spirit because they are alone without work? Or just alone within a very individualized world? There are many types of poverty and it seems to be growing.

So true, Why Me. 

[The Nehor]

In the US the MW was one of many steps established to help stop the US from further falling into the Great Depression and falling into Fascism or Communism.

 

That is the more convincing reason. Public education spiked during that period too. Part of the intent was to instill patriotism to keep the children of the workers from rising up. It worked.

[bluebell]

I appreciate the clarification, Bluebell. I just want to be clear I'm in favor of helping. Period.

 

So barring divine constraint, is it your understanding that the default scriptural position is to provide aid to the beggar? 

 

Yes.  But I don't believe the default scriptural position is to provide money to any and all beggars whenever you run into them.  

 

I think that the scriptures teach us that we should help the poor, but giving them money does not always help them.  Sometimes it actually hurts them, a lot.

 

If we don't care whether or not we are hurting them, but only focus on ourselves and how we gave them something, then i don't think we are doing what the scriptures teach in regard to the poor.

[thesometimesaint]

My default position is to give what is necessary. Be it from a warm smile to my tax money.

[mercyngrace]

Yes.  But I don't believe the default scriptural position is to provide money to any and all beggars whenever you run into them.  

 

I think that the scriptures teach us that we should help the poor, but giving them money does not always help them.  Sometimes it actually hurts them, a lot.

 

If we don't care whether or not we are hurting them, but only focus on ourselves and how we gave them something, then i don't think we are doing what the scriptures teach in regard to the poor.

I agree that giving money isn't always even the best "triage" answer. And for my part, I've never said I didn't care whether I was hurting or helping. My question was an attempt to establish a baseline of agreement. 

Edited January 8, 2014 by mercyngrace

[Senator]

I'm not them.  At this point in my life, I can just do triage. A meal or a couple of bucks is a band-aid. It won't end or create addiction but it will fill a stomach and buy a few hours of warmth.

 

I appreciated the story M&G. May I share one of my own? It was a time that I can point to actually have been taught by The Spirit.

 

One day during lunch break, I left the office to grab a bite to eat at a nearby fast food joint.  As I pulled up to the building I notice a man sitting with his back up against the wall of the restaurant. Upon getting out of my truck he approached me with spray bottle and rag in hand asking if he could clean my windshield. I declined the offer but reached into my wallet and handed him a couple of bucks, thanking him for the offer anyways.

 

 As I sat eating my cheap, high calorie meal, my mind began to think about that man, contrasted with my favorable circumstances and many years of good employment. A scene began to develop in my mind, with an accompanying narrator. The thought/narrator said, "the two bucks was nice, but why didn't you give him the ten dollar bill sitting adjacent to the two ones in your wallet instead?" I immediately felt a wave of selfishness and guilt. I wouldn't have missed that ten at all. The scene continued, with the narrator saying, "better yet, after giving him the ten, why didn't you then ask if he had had lunch yet.....and then offer to buy him lunch with anything on the menu that he wanted."  Yes, I thought, that would not have put me out in the least. The scene did not end there and the narrator continued, "better yet, why didn't you then ask him to sit and join you for lunch?" Ah, that one I had a come back for! His appearance and lack of hygiene would probably have been a put off to the other people eating in the restaurant. The narrator then said, "you could have invited him to join you out side, drop the tailgate on the truck which you had parked under a shady tree, and there sat and ate lunch.....and talked."  "You may have learned about the life of this child of God; what has brought him to this circumstance of life. Your eyes would have been opened. You may have been able to even mention My Name to him."

 

I found myself with tears streaming down my face.

 

Yes indeed. I was taught.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Senator

[bluebell]

I agree that giving money isn't always even the best "triage" answer. And for my part, I've never said I didn't care whether I as hurting or helping. My question was an attempt to establish a baseline of agreement. 

 

I completely realize that.

 

It was Mark who said that King Benjamin taught that we should give regardless of the consequences.  But since it was his post that started our conversation today, i wanted to continue to address it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes.  But I don't believe the default scriptural position is to provide money to any and all beggars whenever you run into them.  

 

I think that the scriptures teach us that we should help the poor, but giving them money does not always help them.  Sometimes it actually hurts them, a lot.

 

If we don't care whether or not we are hurting them, but only focus on ourselves and how we gave them something, then i don't think we are doing what the scriptures teach in regard to the poor.

As I recall without taking time to look it up, the passage from King Benjamin includes in the context something along the lines of let these things be done in wisdom and order. To me, that means being prudent and selective in the ways one gives to the poor.

 

Also, there is something there about not running faster than we have strength. This conveys to me the message that we don't give to the point where we place our own or our family's well-being in jeopardy.