Mocking The Poor

[rodheadlee]

In terms of welfare and caring for the poor, there tends to be a vital difference in outcomes between giving a man a fish as contrasted with teaching a man to fish. The one creates dependency, and the other self-sufficiency.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ideally you would feed him while you teach him to fish.

[Calm]

Ideally you would feed him while you teach him to fish.

And just teaching him won't do much if he doesn't have access to fishing tools or the fish themselves, but is limited by law on where and when or can't afford a license.

[thesometimesaint]

And just teaching him won't do much if he doesn't have access to fishing tools or the fish themselves, but is limited by law on where and when or can't afford a license.

 

Now-a-days the only fishing I do is in the fresh fish department of my local grocery store.

[The Nehor]

Ideally you would feed him while you teach him to fish.

 

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Feed a man to the fish and you feed a whole village of fish.

Teach a village of fish to feed on man and soon that knowledge will spread and man will fear the water and the engines of death lurking beneath.

[wenglund]

My point was that Jesus was not endorsing the original story as a model to live by but the hidden meaning behind it. To use the parable of the talents to teach economics is to take the original story. If you want to draw morals from that story you are of course welcome to do so but I would be very wary of teaching from them. If the parable of the Unjust Steward is not to be taken literally as a guide for life why would the parable of the talents somehow be?

 

You are getting patronizing again and I disagree.

 

"I have a key by which I understand the scripture. I inquire, what was the question that drew out the answers?" - Joseph Smith

 

The Lord was not teaching about economics or art. He was talking about the coming of the Kingdom of God. The parable should be read in that light. Reading it in any other light is dangerous without direct spiritual revelation. Reading into it support for views you already hold is even more dangerous.

 

Sorry about the unintended patronizing. I need to do a better job in the way I handling and address differing opinions.

 

With that having been said, I grant the validity of what you say about scriptural interpretation above.

 

However, I view it differently. I consider gospel principles to be a blueprint not only for how I should live within the gospel, but also in the world. To me, when the Savior preached the beatitudes, and intimated that I should do unto others as I would have others do unto me, I don't interpret this compartmentally as applicable only within a spiritual context and in relation to my interaction with fellow members of my own religious faith. Instead, I see it and the other beatitudes as general principles of conduct applicable through-out all areas of my earthly existence--including within business relationships and economics.

 

I view the parables in like manner.

 

In other words, as I see things, the gospel isn't just a spiritual pathway, but a mortal lifestyle. Truth is circumscribed in one great whole. When I liken the scriptures unto myself, for the most part it isn't just spiritually, but also in relation to my secular walks of life.

 

Others are free to interpret the scriptures otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 17, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

Sorry about the unintended patronizing. I need to do a better job in the way I handling and address differing opinions.

 

With that having been said, I grant the validity of what you say about scriptural interpretation above.

 

However, I view it differently. I consider gospel principles to be a blueprint not only for how I should live within the gospel, but also in the world. To me, when the Savior preached the beatitudes, and intimated that I should do unto others as I would have others do unto me, I don't interpret this compartmentally as applicable only within a spiritual context and in relation to my interaction with fellow members of my own religious faith. Instead, I see it and the other beatitudes as general principles of conduct applicable through-out all areas of my earthly existence--including within business relationships and economics.

 

I view the parables in like manner.

 

In other words, as I see things, the gospel isn't just a spiritual pathway, but a mortal lifestyle. Truth is circumscribed in one great whole. When I liken the scriptures unto myself, for the most part it isn't just spiritually, but also in relation to my secular walks of life.

 

Others are free to interpret the scriptures otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You hit the same snag then. If they are universally applicable then you should behave like the Unjust Judge or the Unjust Steward using the same reasoning.

[wenglund]

You hit the same snag then. If they are universally applicable then you should behave like the Unjust Judge or the Unjust Steward using the same reasoning.

 

I do behave accordingly...at least in terms of the principles I believe the Savior was intending to convey within those and other parables (assuming I can figure them out).

 

For, as indicated in the 16th chapter of Luke regarding the unjust servant, here are the principles being conveyed: "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?" (emphasis mine)

 

Accordingly, I try to be faithful in the unrighteous mammon (economics) so that I can be trusted with the true spiritual riches. I do so by striving to live according to gospel principles within each domain (secular as well as spiritual).

 

As for the parable of the Unjust Judge, I like this interpretation, which I view as having beneficial secular as well as spiritual application: "For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites. Though not unduly partial toward the weak, yet he hears the cry of the oppressed. He is not deaf to the wail of the orphan, nor to the widow when she pours out her complaint; Do not the tears that stream down her cheek cry out against him that causes them to fall? He who serves God willingly is heard; his petition reaches the heavens. The prayer of the lowly pierces the clouds; it does not rest till it reaches its goal, nor will it withdraw till the Most High responds, judges justly and affirms the right." (See HERE as quoted HERE)

 

Others are free to view these parables otherwise, as also the parable of the talents.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 17, 2014 by wenglund

[bcuzbcuz]

I do behave accordingly...at least in terms of the principles I believe the Savior was intending to convey within those and other parables (assuming I can figure them out).

 

For, as indicated in the 16th chapter of Luke regarding the unjust servant, here are the principles being conveyed: "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?" (emphasis mine)

 

Accordingly, I try to be faithful in the unrighteous mammon (economics) so that I can be trusted with the true spiritual riches. I do so by striving to live according to gospel principles within each domain (secular as well as spiritual).

 

As for the parable of the Unjust Judge, I like this interpretation, which I view as having beneficial secular as well as spiritual application: "For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites. Though not unduly partial toward the weak, yet he hears the cry of the oppressed. He is not deaf to the wail of the orphan, nor to the widow when she pours out her complaint; Do not the tears that stream down her cheek cry out against him that causes them to fall? He who serves God willingly is heard; his petition reaches the heavens. The prayer of the lowly pierces the clouds; it does not rest till it reaches its goal, nor will it withdraw till the Most High responds, judges justly and affirms the right." (See HERE as quoted HERE)

 

Others are free to view these parables otherwise, as also the parable of the talents.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The American food coupon system costs approx. 80 billion per year in the US. Aproximately 5 billion per year is given in voluntary money contributions to help the poor, through food and help organizations in the US. Can you do the math?

[go_utes01]

The American food coupon system costs approx. 80 billion per year in the US. Aproximately 5 billion per year is given in voluntary money contributions to help the poor, through food and help organizations in the US. Can you do the math?

How much more would people charitably give if the government wasn't taking 40% of their income in taxes (and using it ever so efficiently, I might add)? Also, how much more responsible would people act if they knew they had not abdicated their responsibility, at least partially, to their fellow man to the government? Do you really believe people would just allow others to starve to death and do nothing? You have a much lower view of people than I do.

Edited January 17, 2014 by go_utes01

[bcuzbcuz]

How much more would people charitably give if the government wasn't taking 40% of their income in taxes (and using it ever so efficiently, I might add)? Also, how much more responsible would people act if they knew they had not abdicated their responsibility, at least partially, to their fellow man to the government? Do you really believe people would just allow others to starve to death and do nothing? You have a much lower view of people than I do.

Yes, I believe people would allow others to starve and die. I've seen it many times in the past.

When Allende was killed in Chilé and Pinochet took over, the American public was completely silent. I have friends and my wife, who were threatened, to death, to stop defending their desire to re-distribute wealth in Chilé in order that the poor could work and earn a livable income. That fight was stripped from them by an un-holy allegience between Pinochet's government and American interests, represented by intelligence trainers from the CIA, so that all opposition was crushed. The story is repeated in 25 other countries since the end of WW II.

The picture in the US isn't much prettier. The poor are exploited, underpaid, poorly educated and then kicked out (if they're Mexican) when they protest, when they demand health care, schooling and the right to normal standards of living.

I've seen the shanty towns of corrugated housing in California, the gated communities in California that keep out the riff-raff that build walls between the poorr and the rich.

Do you mean, that all these barriers would disappear, if only, the tax system in the US was reformed? I beg you to provide some evidence that your program works.

[Ahab]

How much more would people charitably give if the government wasn't taking 40% of their income in taxes (and using it ever so efficiently, I might add)? Also, how much more responsible would people act if they knew they had not abdicated their responsibility, at least partially, to their fellow man to the government? Do you really believe people would just allow others to starve to death and do nothing? You have a much lower view of people than I do.

Time to wake up and see society as it really is.

There are a lot of good people in the world who do a lot of good things but at the same time the wicked are in the majority and they like to keep most of what they have for themselves.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The picture in the US isn't much prettier. The poor are exploited, underpaid, poorly educated and then kicked out (if they're Mexican) when they protest, when they demand health care, schooling and the right to normal standards of living.

 

I am not sure any one will dispute this. What we should look at is the reasons for this. I think Wade has documented quite well what some of those reasons are.

[go_utes01]

If I were to find myself without resources, I would have family and friends willing to help. If that failed,I could go to my church for help. If somebody has lived their life such that they have nobody willing to help them out/ nowhere to turn for assistance, I think that says more about that person than about society. I know personally, I would have much more money to help others if the government did not take so much from me. I also believe that many people do not give because they believe the government should take care of the problem. Hey,I pay taxes, that should be enough sort of thinking or I advocate for more government help, that is sufficient. If people knew that there was no other group they could pass their responsibility off to,I believe they would fulfill their responsibility. I believe that people are generally good and would not callously standby and watch those they cared about/knew/were associated with/neighbors with/fellow church members/etc.just starve/die. Communities would learn to take care of each other if they knew there was no other option. As people serve one another, the charity and love would increase.

[Ahab]

If I were to find myself without resources, I would have family and friends willing to help. If that failed,I could go to my church for help. If somebody has lived their life such that they have nobody willing to help them out/ nowhere to turn for assistance, I think that says more about that person than about society. I know personally, I would have much more money to help others if the government did not take so much from me. I also believe that many people do not give because they believe the government should take care of the problem. Hey,I pay taxes, that should be enough sort of thinking or I advocate for more government help, that is sufficient. If people knew that there was no other group they could pass their responsibility off to,I believe they would fulfill their responsibility. I believe that people are generally good and would not callously standby and watch those they cared about/knew/were associated with/neighbors with/fellow church members/etc.just starve/die. Communities would learn to take care of each other if they knew there was no other option. As people serve one another, the charity and love would increase.

Our government is basically all of us, represented by people we choose to act for us. It is all of us working together. Some work more than some others of us, with each of us having our own strengths and weaknesses, but still our government is US, for better or worse, and we will always have people we appoint to act the way we want them to act. And yes they should get paid for their service to us with whatever kind of payment we choose to use in our economy.

Even in the Church we have people we choose (sustain) to govern us, and we also contribute to the funds that are required for our services.

If only our worldly Kingdoms operated on a volunteer basis as our Church does. Then we would have some major improvements.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

If I were to find myself without resources, I would have family and friends willing to help. If that failed,I could go to my church for help. If somebody has lived their life such that they have nobody willing to help them out/ nowhere to turn for assistance, I think that says more about that person than about society. I know personally, I would have much more money to help others if the government did not take so much from me. I also believe that many people do not give because they believe the government should take care of the problem. Hey,I pay taxes, that should be enough sort of thinking or I advocate for more government help, that is sufficient. If people knew that there was no other group they could pass their responsibility off to,I believe they would fulfill their responsibility. I believe that people are generally good and would not callously standby and watch those they cared about/knew/were associated with/neighbors with/fellow church members/etc.just starve/die. Communities would learn to take care of each other if they knew there was no other option. As people serve one another, the charity and love would increase.

 

Actually that is why so many people do not understand those who struggle. Those people out in the streets are usually those who lost or never had a support network and a few who alienated them. If I were to lose my job tomorrow I could survive at my current standard of living for about 6-12 months and probably another year more if I cut back. If that failed I have a family willing to help and I could always crash on a friend's couch while rebuilding my life. Virtually everyone one grew up in the church has a support network through it so we do not get those who do not. The guy who was kicked out of his dysfunctional family at 21 and has been living on the streets since does not have a support network and is unlikely to acquire one.

 

In any case we are sent to bless the friendless and hopeless and not to blame them for their state. They might be partially or even fully responsible. Oh well. We are warned that we will be judged with the judgement we mete out. If we want them to bear the punishment for their mistakes and sins do we really want the Savior to do likewise to us?

[go_utes01]

Actually that is why so many people do not understand those who struggle. Those people out in the streets are usually those who lost or never had a support network and a few who alienated them. If I were to lose my job tomorrow I could survive at my current standard of living for about 6-12 months and probably another year more if I cut back. If that failed I have a family willing to help and I could always crash on a friend's couch while rebuilding my life. Virtually everyone one grew up in the church has a support network through it so we do not get those who do not. The guy who was kicked out of his dysfunctional family at 21 and has been living on the streets since does not have a support network and is unlikely to acquire one.

 

In any case we are sent to bless the friendless and hopeless and not to blame them for their state. They might be partially or even fully responsible. Oh well. We are warned that we will be judged with the judgement we mete out. If we want them to bear the punishment for their mistakes and sins do we really want the Savior to do likewise to us?

 

My post was a response to those that were saying that they believed people were wicked, or that the wicked outnumbered the righteous.  I was in no way intending to imply that we have no responsibility to help those that find themselves in a bad situation - whether of their own making or not.  And, I agree there will be some percentage of people that fall through the cracks - like the 21 year old that escapes his dysfunctional family and finds himself on the street.  But, what percentage of people that currently receive assistance or are in need of assistance are situations like that?  I believe that most people could be helped by their friends, family, neighbors, fellow church members etc - especially if people had more of their own money to help one another, and had not abdicated their responsibility to the government.  And those that do not have any support network or place to turn, would be helped through private charities - again, people would have more of their own money to donate and allocate to groups that are most efficiently helping.  

 

A few of you on this board,in my estimation, have way too much trust in those in government.  I do not trust those in government to enact programs that efficiently run to alleviate the problems we are discussing.  How successful has the so-called war on poverty been?  Why should I trust these groups with my money.  Have they shown to be worthy of that trust?  Those drawn to political positions tend to be those that crave power, not necessarily those that want to help others.  To prove my point, if any of you had $1,000,000 and wanted to most effectively and efficiently help those around you, would you donate that money to the government?  Private charity?  A church?  Try to help people individually?  For me, donating the money to the government would be the least efficient way to help those in need of help.  But, to each their own.  If you trust the government and those running it - we have a different opinion of those drawn to government power.

Edited January 18, 2014 by go_utes01

[thesometimesaint]

How much more would people charitably give if the government wasn't taking 40% of their income in taxes (and using it ever so efficiently, I might add)? Also, how much more responsible would people act if they knew they had not abdicated their responsibility, at least partially, to their fellow man to the government? Do you really believe people would just allow others to starve to death and do nothing? You have a much lower view of people than I do.

 

In the abstract it is true that if everyone in the world took care of just one other person then hunger would be eliminated. But saying that puts neither fish nor chicken on the dinner table.

 

We actually do prefer to see people starve to death than let go of just one of our 10,000 lunches.

 

I have a very high opinion of the children of God. of some of their actions not so much.

[Storm Rider]

Ideally I would prefer that family and those who are spiritually minded or religiously affiliated be the network that supports those in need. However, there are very few institutions that can readily handle the huge demands of those in need. The vast majority have not concept of the need for broad ranging services. Governments seem to be able to fulfill a part of it, but they fail miserably because they are blind to the enabling of those who would prefer to live from generation to generation on the dole. So many of us would really prefer to stop working, stop competing, stop trying to deal with the pressures of finding work, succeeding at work, and finding alternative work when a current career ends.

 

I have been a free market capitalist most of my life, but on a recent visit to Helsinki I was incredibly impressed with how well their society works. They seem very willing to work efficiently, effectively knowing that a large percentage of their income will go to taxes to support fellow citizens. There is a narrow range between the poor and the wealthy, which I appreciated.

 

We have developed a warped sense of justice while creating a system that only the rich can benefit fully from all that is offered. I don't have an answer in how to best govern people and how to ensure that we motivate people to sense a responsibility to work work hard for the benefit of the community. What is apparent is that what we have is not working and the working poor are the ones who suffer the most.

[wenglund]

The American food coupon system costs approx. 80 billion per year in the US. Approximately 5 billion per year is given in voluntary money contributions to help the poor, through food and help organizations in the US. Can you do the math?

 

No one is questioning the considerably greater capacity of governments to compulsory extract and compulsively spend and waste other people's money, even when the people and governments can't afford it. The math in this regard is self-evident.

 

And, if spending was the sole meaningful assessment criteria in regards to charity, you may have a point.

 

However, the capacity to toss money at a problem doesn't always translate into solving the problem. Some times it can make matters worse.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

My post was a response to those that were saying that they believed people were wicked, or that the wicked outnumbered the righteous.  I was in no way intending to imply that we have no responsibility to help those that find themselves in a bad situation - whether of their own making or not.  And, I agree there will be some percentage of people that fall through the cracks - like the 21 year old that escapes his dysfunctional family and finds himself on the street.  But, what percentage of people that currently receive assistance or are in need of assistance are situations like that?  I believe that most people could be helped by their friends, family, neighbors, fellow church members etc - especially if people had more of their own money to help one another, and had not abdicated their responsibility to the government.  And those that do not have any support network or place to turn, would be helped through private charities - again, people would have more of their own money to donate and allocate to groups that are most efficiently helping.  

 

A few of you on this board,in my estimation, have way too much trust in those in government.  I do not trust those in government to enact programs that efficiently run to alleviate the problems we are discussing.  How successful has the so-called war on poverty been?  Why should I trust these groups with my money.  Have they shown to be worthy of that trust?  Those drawn to political positions tend to be those that crave power, not necessarily those that want to help others.  To prove my point, if any of you had $1,000,000 and wanted to most effectively and efficiently help those around you, would you donate that money to the government?  Private charity?  A church?  Try to help people individually?  For me, donating the money to the government would be the least efficient way to help those in need of help.  But, to each their own.  If you trust the government and those running it - we have a different opinion of those drawn to government power.

 

In the US about 46.5 million. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

 

Government has a affirmative responsibility to do for the individual what the individual can not do for themselves.

 

Actually governments are the most effective means by which we as a society help those in need. Private charities are important and have their place. However they are the least effective means in terms of monies received vs monies delivered to the needy.

 

I pay taxes. I want those tax monies going to promote the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. I give to charities because I agree with how they spend that money.

 

Rich people give a lower percentage of income to charities than their less well of citizens. In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=0

 

The War on Poverty decreased poverty by 40%, and among the aged by far more.

http://irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc251a.pdf

 

Claiming that because antipoverty programs haven't eliminated poverty we need to do away with antipoverty programs.That makes about as much sense as doing away with fire departments because we still have fires.

 

Most people go into government services because they think they can make a meaningful contribution. Just as most people whom operate charities do so because they think they can make a meaningful contribution.

 

You do seem to have a much lower opinion of people than I do.

[thesometimesaint]

Ideally I would prefer that family and those who are spiritually minded or religiously affiliated be the network that supports those in need. However, there are very few institutions that can readily handle the huge demands of those in need. The vast majority have not concept of the need for broad ranging services. Governments seem to be able to fulfill a part of it, but they fail miserably because they are blind to the enabling of those who would prefer to live from generation to generation on the dole. So many of us would really prefer to stop working, stop competing, stop trying to deal with the pressures of finding work, succeeding at work, and finding alternative work when a current career ends.

 

I have been a free market capitalist most of my life, but on a recent visit to Helsinki I was incredibly impressed with how well their society works. They seem very willing to work efficiently, effectively knowing that a large percentage of their income will go to taxes to support fellow citizens. There is a narrow range between the poor and the wealthy, which I appreciated.

 

We have developed a warped sense of justice while creating a system that only the rich can benefit fully from all that is offered. I don't have an answer in how to best govern people and how to ensure that we motivate people to sense a responsibility to work work hard for the benefit of the community. What is apparent is that what we have is not working and the working poor are the ones who suffer the most.

 

In the US, since 1996, the maximum time to receive AFDC is 5 years. Hardly for generations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm

[Storm Rider]

In the US, since 1996, the maximum time to receive AFDC is 5 years. Hardly for generations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm

 

And those that were on welfare for generations before that were automatically changed and adjusted to the new dynamic?  Talk about evolution

[The Nehor]

No one is questioning the considerably greater capacity of governments to compulsory extract and compulsively spend and waste other people's money, even when the people and governments can't afford it. The math in this regard is self-evident.

 

Actually several studies show that welfare dollars benefit the economy more then their cost because the money is quickly rerouted back into the economy and stimulate it. The last study I read suggested that each dollar put into welfare had a rough economic benefit to the economy as a whole of about $1.07. That is a pretty decent return.

[Storm Rider]

Actually several studies show that welfare dollars benefit the economy more then their cost because the money is quickly rerouted back into the economy and stimulate it. The last study I read suggested that each dollar put into welfare had a rough economic benefit to the economy as a whole of about $1.07. That is a pretty decent return.

 

Did the study also address the long-term benefits for the poor? Money is easy to throw at a problem, but I am more interested, regardless of cost, of finding solutions to aid citizens to be productive as possible. Productivity is a bit difficult to measure; it is a moving scale depending upon the abilities of the individual. Regardless, I believe that happiness, satisfaction is not really possible unless the individual senses that they contribute to the greater good of society; that they are needed and wanted. 

[The Nehor]

Did the study also address the long-term benefits for the poor? Money is easy to throw at a problem, but I am more interested, regardless of cost, of finding solutions to aid citizens to be productive as possible. Productivity is a bit difficult to measure; it is a moving scale depending upon the abilities of the individual. Regardless, I believe that happiness, satisfaction is not really possible unless the individual senses that they contribute to the greater good of society; that they are needed and wanted. 

 

It did not. Short-term aid generally is not a long-term solution. It is a necessity while a long-term solution is sought.

 

I think there are a few things we can do to increase the employability of the disadvantaged and struggling. Job training programs are a plus if well-run. Restricting criminal and (especially) credit background checks to industries where it is more vital and making it illegal in other fields would provide a way out of a hole. Reduced sentencing for non-violent offenses to keep our skyrocketing prison population down and prevent it from creating more career criminals. Fighting for livable minimum wages so that a job guarantees enough for a decent minimum standard of living and not an endless fight for financial survival. Increasing education standards/funding in poorer areas.