Welfare vs Charity

Today I was driving down town and noticed that there were about five people standing outside of the Walmart parking lot holding the ever popular "occupy" signs. One of them read that we are part of the 99% who have no money. I can't help but feel a little irony as I watched thousands of people driving down the crowded streets of this rural po dunk town I live in hopping from store to store buying last minute Christmas presents, food, and candy for their poor broken homes.

I saw crowded grocery stores, appliance stores, super markets, second hand stores, places that sell trinkets, gadgets, gizmoes, toys, electronics, and all sorts of useful little things that make life more enjoyable. The parking lots were full of cars and trucks owned by all of these thousands upon thousands of poor starving consumers who had not yet [aid a visit to one of the multitude of coffee shops that sell overpriced Dixie cups of lattes, espressos and cappuccinos.

On average Americans give 300 billion dollars a year to charitable organizations. 35% of that charity is from religious organizations. In the year 2011 the American government took by force over 600 billion dollars from the tax payers and distributed it to no income Americans. Half of that money came from the top 1% of America's wealthiest people and the rest came from the upper 50% of America. The rest paid nothing in taxes.

One of the overlooked aspects of today's welfare program is it's original intent. When FDR first signed into law the first antipoverty act he made it clear that this would be a temporary provision to help pull the poor out of poverty.

“The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief... Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.” -FDR

What he got however, was an institution that made the poor comfortable in poverty, and the American tax payers have been footing the bill by force from the United States government ever since.

It is quite baffling that the liberals who tout the need for increased welfare spending can not see the fact that they want a mandate for the people to hand more money over to politicians and expect the money to be handled properly. The question arises if those people are aware that they are giving bucket loads of cash to politicians.

Politicians have time and again proven that they know how to mismanage money. From the state level to the federal level there should be little debate on the issue, yet this notion that elitism somehow merits moral superiority lives in the hearts of our trusting liberal counterparts.

The long standing fact is when you give the government money, they will assuredly waste it to no end, but when money is given to a worthy charitable cause the outcome will be much different. Under the United States constitution we are all guaranteed the right to the funds which are doled out to the public. Specifically the general welfare clause of the United States constitution was intended so that all members of the union will be benefited, not just the few.

The reason that America is the most charitable country in the world is not because it taxes the wealthy, but quite the opposite. It is because our taxes are relatively low in comparison to other countries. Not only this but the abundance of wealth that has been created due to our flourishing free trade market has enabled us to live comfortably and create the most significant middle class the world has ever seen. We have the best work ethic because we have the ability to see our dreams come to fruition. And this is due to our ability to create wealth out of nothing more than an idea, and we have the drive to make that idea happen.

Just imagine for a minute if there were no government ran social programs. Each and every one of us could take the money that goes into social security and become millionaires. With that kind of money alone we the people would be able to actually build up the charities that we choose. We wouldn't be sitting at home watching those sad commercials about people in starving countries who need our help, we could actually be able to donate real money to them instead of something as insignificant as a daily cup of coffee.

There is no doubt that the government welfare system is being abused. Each year a state ran program gets a projected amount of money from the government. If those people do not spend the same amount of money that year or more they will expect to get less money the next year. This system prompts social workers to find more reasons to keep people on welfare so the program will maintain its funds and everyone gets to keep their jobs of handing out free money. I for one would like to see a system where people want to solve the problem and move on to the next one. And what better institution than, dare I say, volunteer work through the medium of organized religion.

Organized religion is hands down the most accurate method in use that helps the needy. A 2005 study showed that the state of Utah which is 70% LDS spends 14% of their public budget on welfare which is much lower than the national average of 22.4% and is the lowest in the nation for child poverty. This is due partially to the fact that the LDS church advocates tithing and admonishes it's members to fast one day a month and give two meals worth of money to the poor.

The government couldn't even compete with the kind of efficeincy that all the religions could as far as doling out money in it's most useful sense goes. If a few volunteers from every congregation were asked to take a couple of hours out of their week to asses the needs of others struggling in the area it would completely knock social workers off the map. Along with this, once the people who have been taken care of have had their needs met, the job would be finished and the congregation member would no longer be required to seak out more potential reciprients. They would not have to project numbers to secure more income to their upper managment and no one would be in danger of loosing their job as a social worker.

More by this Author

  • Family history part 4

    James William Dockery Born in 1768, Died in 1855 (Cherokee,NC) He had six children all living around the county of Buncombe. James married a woman by the name of Nancy, he is the oldest Dockery mentioned in the...

  • I think I'm part Cherokee

    A lot of very white people with Southern roots always seem to be claiming that they have a native American ancestor in their family tree. If you're going to say it, might as well prove it.

  • Evolution theory doesn't make sense.

    Of the many fields of science which I am in agreement with there are a few questionable things which always seem to take the forefront of the political and social infrastructure. Such controversies have arisen...

Comments 11 comments

geordmc 4 years ago from Beliot, Wisconsin

I think that welfare should be abolished since it is tax money. But what about disability for those who cannot work because of physical limitations. I, myself cannot work in the field of my choice because of this after spending 20+ yrs doing what I enjoyed. I was denied renewal by a bureaucrat, not a doctor, someone who has no idea of medical decisions and told by their boss DENY,DENY,DENY!!! How is this fair for those of us who would be working if we could? I paid taxes for this all my working life, yet I am told I can't get what I PAID for. Welfare is NOT disability but is grouped into yhe same catagory, it seems, by a lot of people such as the social security admin. Welfare itself is meant to be a hand up, not a hand out.

Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 4 years ago from washington Author

geordmc, I agree that welfare is completely different than disability, and should be treated as such. This is a program that you have paid into and therefore you should benefit from. With welfare, people can come into this country who have never paid into it and start collecting. I think you got screwed.

Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 4 years ago from washington Author

Thanks for reading!

geordmc 4 years ago from Beliot, Wisconsin

It's not just me getting screwed. There are people who are fighting cancer that have used up insurance and lost jobs because of illness AND THEY ARE REFUSED disability all because some jackass politician said to.

Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 4 years ago from washington Author

Geordmc, it's too bad, There are too many people who have never paid into the system that are collecting from it who should not be, and they are ruining it for everyone else. That's the problem with government ran social programs, and that is also why I believe that we are too soft on illegal immigration.

geordmc 4 years ago from Beliot, Wisconsin

Unfortunately the govt would rather see you dead than give up one cent. As far as they are concerned whatever you pay in taxes should line their pockets not go where it belongs.

Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 4 years ago from washington Author

That's why raising taxes is completely futile. It just goes to earmarks, kickbacks, and scams like Solyndra.

gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 3 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

Great article on welfare. I feel that welfare as we know should be overturned and abolished. Yes, there should be social programs for the elderly, disabled, temporarily unemployed, and underemployed. Welfare only encourages dependency which is stangulating and ruining America.

Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 3 years ago from washington Author

You are absolutely right GM. Socialists will never understand the undeniable failure of their economic planning attempts and they wont let it go until everyone is just as miserable as they are. The ultimate farce is disguising wealth redistribution as charity.

gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 2 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

Applause, applause. The original intent of welfare was temporary assistance. Unfortunately, the welfare state was created in the 1960s. Welfare was to be a lifestyle. The current "president" wants to create a WELFARE state with the premise of equal distribution of income. He hates the wealthy and successful. Well, this is obvious by his emphasis on creating social programs instead of improving the economy. The writing is on the wall, folks! IT IS ON THE WALL!

Onusonus profile image

Onusonus 2 years ago from washington Author

I have read about it that the intentions of the president who implemented it were to be a temporary thing. Unfortunately when it took hold it stuck around.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article