As a society what do YOU say our responsibility is to the poor and under employed? Please be civil.
As a society what do YOU say our responsibility is to the poor and under employed? Please be civil.
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat the rest of his life".
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
The answer, if indeed there is one, lies not with society but with the individual. In the case of the well worn "fish" analogy we have the long standing fact that while you may teach some to fish many will chose to lie on the river bank and let others give them fish.
As individuals we can work hard and amass enough wealth that we, as individuals, can help those in need.
By "society" I mean the people that live here in the USA . I do not mean Government. This is a moral question. I feel that we, as a people should, care for those less fortunate. Of course a "hand up" is always better than a "hand out"
Years ago, at my practice, I had a number of people who were always showing up for a handout. I was located right next door to a Krystal restaurant. (Inexpensive fast food restaurant in the South, kinda like a White Castle elsewhere.) Anyway, when they came in, saying they were hungry and wanting a handout, the first time, I usually gave them enough money to buy something next door. The second time they came in, I took them next door and bought it myself. Then one day, a guy came in for the 3rd time, and wanted money, and I couldn't leave and wouldn't give him money. However, I had my lunch, which I heated up and gave to him. (That meant that I wouldn't have lunch that day.) He ate it and left. A very short time later, I saw him in my parking lot talking to his friends, and pointing at my office, and kinda laughing...I wondered about it and decided that from then on, I wouldn't turn anyone away, but I would be sure to have something for anyone hungry in my office to "give" them, so they wouldn't go away hungry. At about the same time, I realized that I had things around my office that I had to pay to get done...cut grass, trim bushes, clean carpet/office, etc. These same men, became the ones who I would help out only if they helped me...worked. Three of them changed completely. One of them, not only changed, but accepted the Lord and became a leader in his own right. I believe that they need a hand up...not a hand out.
Diane
Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
LOL!! Funny how that happens, isn't it!
It is said that the nation doesn't have enough money to support the 'entitlement' programs, but we always seem to have enough money to fight open wars in two countries, black ops in several more, send billions of dollars overseas to countries that hate us, but we cannot provide money for food stamps, or WIC, or decent healthcare for our veterans.
I'm all for a strong military, but we have a Department of Defense not a Department of War. If "they" want a given country bad enough, let them have it. We played the "domino game" during the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's and the outcome was that for the most part, Communism collapsed and disintegrated. History repeats itself. But we need to take care of our citizens first. We need to have a healthy and well-educated population.
Smaller government? Sure, but let's start by getting rid of the bureaucrats that run the bloated government operations. Start by trimming payrolls, and requiring more accountability to the citizens and those that the operations serve. There is no earthly reason why the VA has not gone "digital" except for its bureaucracy. It's time to clean house, but that isn't done by merely erasing a cabinet level organization, you clean house by opening the windows and getting out the vacuum cleaner and the soap and water. Give the bureaucracy a time limit, for example 6 months. If there hasn't been substantive change in that period of time, they all get fired, and new people who can do the job get put in place.
To me, smaller government means organizations that have less employees and are highly efficient. And if the organization can't meet the same efficiency ratings as a private business doing the same job, then and only then, should a privatization be looked at.
Wow Diane, thats a great story. Good for you for giving someone a leg up. Sometimes people just need an opportunity.
I think it's easy for any of us to point fingers and say, "Yes, they are deserving, no they are not deserving (of charity)" but at the end of the day it's up to us as the more fortunate to find a way to serve our community no matter the outcome. When I can, I volunteer at an organization called "A Better World" which helps disadvantaged childern with after school tutoring, hot meals, love, and fellowship. The graduation rate (from high school) is very impressive. Do I wonder what the deal is with the parents of these kids? Sure. Does it matter in the long run? Not really. It's about the effort and the idea behind giving time, money, and energy to the mission, not about whether the parents are fit or responsible. The kids are here now, no turning back. The least I can do is to try to teach them how to act like a decent human being if no one else in their life can or will step up.
"Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened beings; only enlightened activity." -Shunryu Suzuki
There's nothing inherently wrong with poverty, after all, there wouldn't be rich folks if there weren't poor folks. However, requiring someone to stand in line at the ER to get treatment for what could have been a preventable disease is immoral IMO. Medicare for all Americans from birth to death is probably the only solution.
Regarding the underemployed, let me tell you about a friend of mine, a keyboard player that I've worked with who has been blind since birth, lost his spouse about ten years ago (he's about my age), receives government help, has income as a musician, which isn't much these days, but still works a factory job 20 hours a week, and has done so for the 35 years or so that I've known him. So, everyone works, even if it's a rotten job, so that we can put food on the table and pay the rent.
Now, rent for a very poor person probably means doubling up to reduce costs. In addition, living space will probably be limited, in an area where there are many others who are also poor. IMO, it's immoral to force people to live in fear for their physical safety from hoodlums, gangsters, and violent people, so I would recommend that social crimes be decriminalized, taxed by the state, and treated medically instead of criminally. Any leftover violent criminals should be pulled of the streets and imprisoned until they are too old and weak to be much of a bother to non-violent citizens.
Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 08-08-2013 at 04:06 PM.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Recognizing that the poor and under employed are not defined and that some will not be willing to rationally argue my points- To answer this old as humanity question in a 21st century world I'd start by...
Wish list-
Continuing to contribute to elect officials who share my progressive view that taxes are too low. Especially on the ultra wealthy. Extra points to those who recognize the ultra wealthy are running our government by the plutocracy they've very effectively created (at the expense of the middle class) over the last couple of generations and are willing to change things.
I'd return the tax rate to what we paid under Geo. H. W. Bush so the deficit can again shrink by a growing economy. Yes this will increase by several thousand dollars a year yours and my taxes but we must start to pay the fiddler. Unless we want scenes from the depression again played out on our streets we cannot just cut our way out of the economic mess that is one of the roots of our especially new poverty stricken population.
I'd change the Constitution to limit amounts of money that can be spent on a given race.
I'd do away with the Electoral College (which is happening via the back door with state legislatures committing all electors to the majority winner of presidential elections once 3/4 of states agree) so a handful of counties in a handful of states no longer decide the election.
I'd advocate a carbon tax so the true cost of energy is realized. Again our legacy of inaction is shameful and will have to be paid by future generations.
I'd look for a way to create an inflation adjusted livable minimum wage. I'd encourage a return of a significant unionized workforce (the "good old days" post WW2 had them!) while limiting the ability for organized crime to infiltrate them.
Can we all agree that the revolving door of Eisenhower's prescience military/industrial complex needs to be closed?
How about a tax on internet sales?
Put a penny per stock tax on traded stocks so these algorithm driven wild swings of day traded stocks can be eliminated. Use the money to fund the SEC to effectively police The Street.
I'd require congress to fully fund any mandate to states in laws they create.
Put a lot more money into social services to identify and follow children at risk of giving up and becoming life long "wards of the state" who figure the only way to get ahead is to scam the system.
Most importantly I'd provide with these and many more changes to taxes and the status quo, quality day care and education from the earliest possible stage of a child's life.
Now my conservatives friends who's blood pressure is through the roof right now please recognize I cannot defend nor would I defend the Lexus driving gold chain dripping welfare recipient who feels the man has not given them enough. They should be identified and removed from the rolls. Nor do I want a country like Spain or Greece. Germany, however, will do!
(Or you could just elect me President for life with absolute power. I will be all things to all people who's only fault is modesty!!!)
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 08-09-2013 at 02:11 PM.
Life's not fair, God made that clear when scripture was penned. He also said that there were always going to be the poor, and those endowed with means should help. He likens the poor to Himself, so when you minister to the poor you are ministering to Him, to not do so is sin. If the organized Judeo Christian Church was doing its job as set forth in scripture there would be NO need for governmental social welfare and engineering. There is a callousness in society to the downtrodden and a me-first mentality, if we truly loved and where more humble society would be better.
Clinton Tower
The intellect to live free is in short supply
ALT248=°
The problem is...humanity itself. We don't all have the same values and abilities.
If you did an experiment where you took one hundred people and gave them each a million dollars on a Monday...by Tuesday you would have rich people and poor people.
Some people definitely make the wrong choices and wind up poor. Some lack ambition and wind up poor.
But some get taken advantage of...by big business, or the greed of other individuals. And some people just have bad luck or poor health.
What you do about the poor depends on how they got there in the first place. Making sure that educational and job opportunities are present are big first steps.
There are no simple answers.
What is boils down to is, you can't force people to want to help others. You could line up 10 rich people and you would get 10 different "charity" cases they would want to help. I mean, there are some folks who would step over a starving man to help a dog.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks