jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (29 posts)

help the poor by helping them save

  1. etauntontv profile image61
    etauntontvposted 6 years ago

    i want everyone to know if you cut your coupons and give them to churches or social events and put them in a basket someone could use the help.   single parents need help with diapers and other items everyday.  such as milk , cheese ,papertowels , tooth paste.

    help with electricity is a big thing
    give them coupons for light bulbs or buy them for your church to hand out

    1. Rafini profile image81
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      interesting idea.  I just might do that...clip coupons for the food pantry's.  I don't usually use them cuz the coupons are usually for things I don't buy. hmm

    2. Ivorwen profile image83
      Ivorwenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I know that in some areas a person who knows how to use coupons can walk out of a store with a cart full of food and money in hand, but it is not like that where I live.  I can shop much cheaper by buying fresh, whole products.  For things like milk and cheese, the store brand is usually still cheaper than the brand that offers a coupon.  It has always amazed me, when I have offered to help with budgeting, how many who claim to be poor refuse to change their lifestyle and eat healthy.

    3. psycheskinner profile image83
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      When I was poor my trouble was not having money for food, not having a car to get to supermarkets, and dealing with people who were implying my problem was not having a minimum wage job in an expensive town--but a lack of moral character and frugality.  I would suggest just donating actual  food to food kitchens, not coupons.

  2. Cagsil profile image82
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Interesting concept, however, I would recommend separating out the church. The middle person is, if not always, a problem to begin with.

    If you really want to help the poor, then give them what you are suggesting, yourself. Never mind using someone else to deliver your gift or receive your satisfaction from the act.

    You would be best serving yourself, to act on it, instead of getting other people involved with it, such as a church organization.

    1. TLMinut profile image60
      TLMinutposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Having a middle man is good sometimes in these cases. It saves embarrassment for the ones on the receiving end. I've been on the giving and the receiving end, I've given personally and anonymously and received both ways as well. Both ways have their time and place I think.

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How exactly? Either way they are receiving. They have to come face to face with someone, which isn't going to lessen their embarrassment any whatsoever. And, just because it is a Priest or church member, doesn't make it any better.
        And, when you have given without using a middle man, didn't you feel a different feeling inside, compared to having the middle man? hmm

        1. 0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you are giving to friends and family, basically people you know, this might apply. But a healthy element in giving is not about how you feel, it is about how they feel I think.

          Although I would agree with the religious perspective, for the managers of a religion it is part of increasing their 'flock' as much as the giving.  In this I would agree with Somewayoutahere.

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nice to see you are selfish. It's about both, you give because it give you warm loving feeling to do so.

            Or did you miss that part?

            It's not about any individual, it's about compassion for those who are less fortunate, and is done because you care about their future.

            The person receiving it, probably feels embarrassed or guilty or deeply distressed over it, but will not look a gift horse in the mouth, because they choose to survive, by any means necessary.

            Hope that clarified things for you.

            1. 0
              china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It is not necessary to be rude in every comment you make to me.

              I understood your post very clearly.  The point I was making is that 'warm glow' is for YOU, sometimes at the expense of the feelings of the receiver - who you say must suffer the embarrassment because 'they will not look a gift horse in the mouth' in other words you are taking their dignity to get yourself a warm glow. 

              Hope that simplified things for you

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I am not taking their dignity. How foolish is it of you to think in that manner? Damn man, you think before you talk?

                They have no dignity to take. What part do you not understand? Those who are less fortunate and have to accept good will from others, already lost everything. They have hit bottom. The only place for them to go is up.

                As for being rude in my comments? If you cannot handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

                On a different side of the coin- get over yourself. If you find my statements rude, it is because of you, not because the comments are demeaning or insulting. It is how you view them, and the first problem is the ego is always in the way, when truth hurts. So please.

                1. 0
                  china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  We write our characters in our words - and you have done a pretty transparent job on yourself with these.

                  You clearly have a strange idea about dignity. Poor people are not animals or objects of pity - they are human beings that society has little use for.  Only people who debase themselves are without dignity.

                  Often dignity is all they have left, and you seem to want to take that from them as if it were some commodity in exchange for your gifts.

                  1. Cagsil profile image82
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not exactly sure what your intention is with this statement.
                    That society has little use for? WOW! You are right, they are not to be pitied, you are suppose to have compassion for their lack of ability to provide for themselves.
                    Well, I guess that rules out dignity within approximately 4 billion people.
                    You are giving their dignity value where there is none. How ridiculous is that? Don't bother. You cannot see anything outside yourself. Go figure. hmm

                  2. Sab Oh profile image60
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You said this:

                    "We write our characters in our words"

                    Then you said this:

                    " they are human beings that society has little use for"


      2. Aficionada profile image92
        Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This resonates with Maimonides' eight degrees of charity ("Laws of Gifts to the Poor," 1180 C.E.).  The lowest "degree" is when the donor gives "morosely" (resentfully, grudgingly). 

        "The highest degree, exceeded by none, is that of a person who assists a poor Jew by providing him with a gift or a loan or by accepting him into a business partnership or by helping him find employment — in a word, by putting him where he can dispense with other people's aid."

        In between there are several degrees, including the possibility of either the giver or the recipient remaining anonymous.

        Google it, or check out (among other possible references): http: //www.answers. com/topic/charity or http: //www.mainehumanities. org/programs/philanthropy_reading.html

        with spaces removed, of course.

  3. Dame Scribe profile image59
    Dame Scribeposted 6 years ago

    So  true Cagsil smile why not start your own organisation doing just that? Etauntontv smile

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      cool tongue wink

  4. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

    I work with families living in poverty and people suffering from mental health issues.  I routinely get faith based groups involved by basically telling them what people living in poverty need, they gather it from parishoners/followers and deliver it to where I work and then we distribute it.  This all done with the understanding that the organization I am with is not faith based.  I work with muslim, christian, protestant, catholic and jewish groups.  It's taken me a while to build up those connections however.  The other trick is to never discuss religious beliefs smile.  Those groups basically have the same goal - helping those living in poverty.

    In Canada in the past few years those continuing to give the most towards issues of poverty have been faith based groups; people attend their church, jamatkhana or whatever faith based gathering place regularly and give regularly (not just annually).  That is a key factor - regular and ongoing giving.  Charities have been experiencing huge decreases in relation to donations; however faith based groups' methods of raising funds has actually risen and has not been impacted by the economic downturn because their followers gather regularly - they don't stop.  These days too, many followers would rather just write a cheque; giving money is easier than gathering up goods to donate and delivering them.

    Getting faith based groups involved can make a difference; I just direct the giving in a way that people do not feel they must sign on to someone's belief to get help.

    My 2 cents...

    1. earnestshub profile image86
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Only 2 cents? That is really good value. I think you have covered it. smile

    2. 0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      what a great post cheers big_smile

    3. 0
      karmaaposted 6 years ago

      I suppose [and really new]
      I would call poor people
      poor people

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

        dignity...hmmmm...there can be many interpretations of dignity.

        I believe, people living in poverty do retain their dignity....why not...they may not have a lot of money and material things but since when does dignity equate to money or possessions.  one example, most people that are down on their luck do not resort to criminal activity out of desperation - their dignity (self-respect) for themselves would not allow them to do that.

        A big role groups like the one I work with play, is to not judge and to treat people with the dignity and the respect they deserve.  We run into people from time to time that want to donate directly because they of course feel good about it; some want to see who the person is they are helping...but we don't allow that because we are helping people protect their dignity.  We are all just people, sometimes needing a hand up, and we are not on display for others to feel good about giving....

        When we become aware of others needing help but they are too afraid to ask, we go to them, very privately however....always with their dignity in mind.

        1. 0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds like a good setup - good luck to you and them!