The flawed ideology of Conservatism

[thewise1]

You cannot help people that don't want your help.

You also cannot help people who don't know how to use the help.

Proper controls must be in place on charity, else it will be wasted. Those controls do not exist in a government run charity, and cannot in a democracy, because the people can vote themselves the charity.

That's why the biggest charitable things I've done - in financial terms - have involved sharing what extra we had that wouldn't cost us anything in actual dollars, such as offering a free place to live provided certain conditions were met. We were able to implement controls on that so that it wouldn't be abused.

It took us awhile to learn how to properly do this, and the ultimate result was this: It worked better for everyone to not give it away, and to charge for it instead. In the several times we've done this, the only time the person actually improved their life situation was when they were charged and thus had to work, building habits that made them successful.

As a result, I've come to the ultimate conclusion that charity makes a person weaker - or at least doesn't strengthen them, unless it's the sort of thing that is a one time thing - not an ongoing thing. Maybe help someone get out of the hole, but it has to be combined with a plan to keep them out of the hole. I hope that makes sense, as I know this could easily be twisted around to suggest something I didn't mean.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

You cannot help people that don't want your help.

You also cannot help people who don't know how to use the help.

Proper controls must be in place on charity, else it will be wasted. Those controls do not exist in a government run charity, and cannot in a democracy, because the people can vote themselves the charity.

That's why the biggest charitable things I've done - in financial terms - have involved sharing what extra we had that wouldn't cost us anything in actual dollars, such as offering a free place to live provided certain conditions were met. We were able to implement controls on that so that it wouldn't be abused.

It took us awhile to learn how to properly do this, and the ultimate result was this: It worked better for everyone to not give it away, and to charge for it instead. In the several times we've done this, the only time the person actually improved their life situation was when they were charged and thus had to work, building habits that made them successful.

As a result, I've come to the ultimate conclusion that charity makes a person weaker - or at least doesn't strengthen them, unless it's the sort of thing that is a one time thing - not an ongoing thing. Maybe help someone get out of the hole, but it has to be combined with a plan to keep them out of the hole. I hope that makes sense, as I know this could easily be twisted around to suggest something I didn't mean.

Great post, and I agree with everything except the idea that it can't work in a government run program.

I think 6 made an excellent point when he said that we need a social safety net, but ours is currently a hammock.

I feel like we should have things like welfare and food stamps, pell grants and the like, but that type of stuff has to come with conditions that show the person isn't simply leeching, but using the system to better themselves so they can get off of it.

I think everyone who receives welfare and food stamps should have to report into some kind of social worker proving they are looking for a job, just like you do when you collect unemployment.

Students should be required to take a minimum number of courses and maintain a satisfactory GPA (IMO 2.0 is too low, it should be 2.5 minimum) if they want to continue receiving those grants.

I also feel like those people, students who receive grants, etc.. should all be involved in community service to give back to the community of people who's tax dollars have been used to support their efforts to get ahead..

Of course the argument against it is that it will require more government bureaucracy (which I can never remember how to spell properly, thx ), but I think in the end we benefit from

One argument I've heard made on several different occasions is that abuse of those systems is so minimal in the overall scheme that we'd actually be spending more money than we'd save by having extra positions needed to monitor it, but I think community service for students, for example, could be handled by the financial aid office people, and you could add additional duties to other people already in place in most cases.

[7960]

Originally Posted by thewise1

As a result, I've come to the ultimate conclusion that charity makes a person weaker - or at least doesn't strengthen them, unless it's the sort of thing that is a one time thing - not an ongoing thing. Maybe help someone get out of the hole, but it has to be combined with a plan to keep them out of the hole. I hope that makes sense, as I know this could easily be twisted around to suggest something I didn't mean.

Charity is a crutch. It's something to be used when someone's hurting or in pain or in the process of recovering. But just like a literal crutch, if you lean on it too long it's going to end up hurting you more in the end.

When my brother was getting divorced he moved in with me. Some people in my family thought I was an asshole for getting a calendar and talking with my brother and deciding on a specific date for when he'd move out. I thought it was funny (funny-stupid, not funny-haha) that they were saying I was shitty for telling him I'd give him a home and food and family for 3 months when they didn't offer anything. It's real easy to point at someone else and say "You're not doing enough." When I pointed back and said "then have him move in with you when he leaves here!" all the sudden it got real quiet.

BTW, like you said picking a date kept him from lingering. It gave him something to focus on......get a job, get some savings (his ex- took all their money), start working on a place to live, get back to feeling like a self-sufficient man. He ended up moving out before the 3 months and has since told me he really appreciated the kick in the ass.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

sucks to be them.

Exactly what I thought you'd say.

So we should feel obligated to give to who we want to give money to. And if no one cares enough to give to a certain area/group/family/etc., they should just be left to starve, yes?

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by thewise1

You cannot help people that don't want your help.

You also cannot help people who don't know how to use the help.

Proper controls must be in place on charity, else it will be wasted. Those controls do not exist in a government run charity, and cannot in a democracy, because the people can vote themselves the charity.

That's why the biggest charitable things I've done - in financial terms - have involved sharing what extra we had that wouldn't cost us anything in actual dollars, such as offering a free place to live provided certain conditions were met. We were able to implement controls on that so that it wouldn't be abused.

It took us awhile to learn how to properly do this, and the ultimate result was this: It worked better for everyone to not give it away, and to charge for it instead. In the several times we've done this, the only time the person actually improved their life situation was when they were charged and thus had to work, building habits that made them successful.

As a result, I've come to the ultimate conclusion that charity makes a person weaker - or at least doesn't strengthen them, unless it's the sort of thing that is a one time thing - not an ongoing thing. Maybe help someone get out of the hole, but it has to be combined with a plan to keep them out of the hole. I hope that makes sense, as I know this could easily be twisted around to suggest something I didn't mean.

I agree, no one should live on charity forever. It should be a crutch for people who need help in troubled times.

I want to reiterate something because I don't think you guys heard it the first time: I am fundamentally opposed to government handouts for people who can work but choose not to.

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Exactly what I thought you'd say.

So we should feel obligated to give to who we want to give money to. And if no one cares enough to give to a certain area/group/family/etc., they should just be left to starve, yes?

I give to the soup kitchen I want to give to (Bread and Roses in Lawrence MA).

They do not screen the people who come and need something to eat.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

Charity is a crutch. It's something to be used when someone's hurting or in pain or in the process of recovering. But just like a literal crutch, if you lean on it too long it's going to end up hurting you more in the end.

When my brother was getting divorced he moved in with me. Some people in my family thought I was an asshole for getting a calendar and talking with my brother and deciding on a specific date for when he'd move out. I thought it was funny (funny-stupid, not funny-haha) that they were saying I was shitty for telling him I'd give him a home and food and family for 3 months when they didn't offer anything. It's real easy to point at someone else and say "You're not doing enough." When I pointed back and said "then have him move in with you when he leaves here!" all the sudden it got real quiet.

BTW, like you said picking a date kept him from lingering. It gave him something to focus on......get a job, get some savings (his ex- took all their money), start working on a place to live, get back to feeling like a self-sufficient man. He ended up moving out before the 3 months and has since told me he really appreciated the kick in the ass.

Can you ever provide an example that doesn't involve your own biased personal experiences?

You've lived quite a life from everything you've told us about all the wondrous things you've done, but some objective evidence would be nice.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

I give to the soup kitchen I want to give to (Bread and Roses in Lawrence MA).

They do not screen the people who come and need something to eat.

This is another example of you presenting a subjective, biased personal example which doesn't answer the question.

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Can you ever provide an example that doesn't involve your own biased personal experiences?

Why would I do that? You'd rather have me talk about things I've read about rather than things I've done? When someone's talking to me and starts a story with "I heard..." I usually tune it out to some degree. When their story starts with "I went and did..." then I'm interested.

You've lived quite a life from everything you've told us about all the wondrous things you've done, but some objective evidence would be nice.

What objective evidence do you need?

Originally Posted by A_C_E

This is another example of you presenting a subjective, biased personal example which doesn't answer the question.

Just like your "govt takes your money or all the poor people die" is another scenario where you present a false dilemma.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by motivez

Great post, and I agree with everything except the idea that it can't work in a government run program.

I think 6 made an excellent point when he said that we need a social safety net, but ours is currently a hammock.

I feel like we should have things like welfare and food stamps, pell grants and the like, but that type of stuff has to come with conditions that show the person isn't simply leeching, but using the system to better themselves so they can get off of it.

I think everyone who receives welfare and food stamps should have to report into some kind of social worker proving they are looking for a job, just like you do when you collect unemployment.

Students should be required to take a minimum number of courses and maintain a satisfactory GPA (IMO 2.0 is too low, it should be 2.5 minimum) if they want to continue receiving those grants.

I also feel like those people, students who receive grants, etc.. should all be involved in community service to give back to the community of people who's tax dollars have been used to support their efforts to get ahead..

Of course the argument against it is that it will require more government bureaucracy (which I can never remember how to spell properly, thx ), but I think in the end we benefit from

One argument I've heard made on several different occasions is that abuse of those systems is so minimal in the overall scheme that we'd actually be spending more money than we'd save by having extra positions needed to monitor it, but I think community service for students, for example, could be handled by the financial aid office people, and you could add additional duties to other people already in place in most cases.

Excellent post. I agree with everything, most of it wholeheartedly.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

Great post, and I agree with everything except the idea that it can't work in a government run program.

I think 6 made an excellent point when he said that we need a social safety net, but ours is currently a hammock.

I feel like we should have things like welfare and food stamps, pell grants and the like, but that type of stuff has to come with conditions that show the person isn't simply leeching, but using the system to better themselves so they can get off of it.

I think everyone who receives welfare and food stamps should have to report into some kind of social worker proving they are looking for a job, just like you do when you collect unemployment.

The unemployment system is probably easier to abuse than welfare, although I've never been on welfare so maybe that's not really accurate. Either way, it's incredibly easy to abuse and to say that you have to be that accountable is a waste of money - you might as well not be accountable at all.

Students should be required to take a minimum number of courses and maintain a satisfactory GPA (IMO 2.0 is too low, it should be 2.5 minimum) if they want to continue receiving those grants.

I also feel like those people, students who receive grants, etc.. should all be involved in community service to give back to the community of people who's tax dollars have been used to support their efforts to get ahead..

Of course the argument against it is that it will require more government bureaucracy (which I can never remember how to spell properly, thx ), but I think in the end we benefit from

I don't. I've worked both in the government and private sector and individuals working for private industry will almost always outperform the government version. The reason is simple - once you get into a government job, you trade the ability to rise to the top based on your performance for job security that is pretty great. It didn't take me long to realize that there was absolutely no point in me busting my ass to get things done because there was absolutely no reward in it.

One argument I've heard made on several different occasions is that abuse of those systems is so minimal in the overall scheme that we'd actually be spending more money than we'd save by having extra positions needed to monitor it, but I think community service for students, for example, could be handled by the financial aid office people, and you could add additional duties to other people already in place in most cases.

I know the abuse of the system is rampant because I've seen it firsthand. That's not to say everyone collecting the government cheese is a bad person, some are legitimately needy, or handicapped to the point where I don't want to complain about helping them out that way in spite of my ideological views on the subject.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Conversely, we should let them starve?

What seems like the more optimal scenario?

Who says they're all starving? Wr have soup kitchens available. The poor have multiple places to turn to for help, while looking a job. If they choose not to and they starve, who's fault is it really?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thewise1

The unemployment system is probably easier to abuse than welfare, although I've never been on welfare so maybe that's not really accurate. Either way, it's incredibly easy to abuse and to say that you have to be that accountable is a waste of money - you might as well not be accountable at all.

Unemployment is not welfare. It's an insurance policy that you pay for through your employer and it only lasts a limited amount of time (6 months in Illinois, don't know about other states).

You can't really compare it to welfare.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Unemployment is not welfare. It's an insurance policy that you pay for through your employer and it only lasts a limited amount of time (6 months in Illinois, don't know about other states).

You can't really compare it to welfare.

I wasn't comparing it, but only pointing out how easy it is to abuse.