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

Why is giving to THE POOR an exercise in futility, making them EVEN LAZIER &

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 9 months ago

    Why is giving to THE POOR an exercise in futility, making them EVEN LAZIER &

    MORE DEPENDENT, when it is FAR BETTER to teach the poor to become SELF-SUFFICIENT & INDEPENDENT?   What are the ways that charities are DETRIMENTAL to the poor?


  2. dashingscorpio profile image88
    dashingscorpioposted 9 months ago


    Behind every face is a story...
    The vast majority of the poor are (children).
    The elderly, or mentally unstable also make up a large part of poverty. You can't punish the parent without hurting the child.
    We can't teach infants/children to be more self-sufficient and independent by not making sure their parents which (they did not choose) aren't feeding and providing for them.
    Charity is not detriment to the poor it's how the individual accepts it. Its either a helping hand until they get on their feet or a lifestyle. It's up to them to make the most of it.
    It's rare to see {a young single healthy adult with a high school diploma}, (no children), who is not engaged in criminal activity, drugs, nor dating/associating with toxic people that is "poor".
    Two working people living as roommates with minimum wage jobs can manage without government assistance. A young healthy person who is poor usually has made some poor life choices. Some people have alienated themselves from family and friends due to those choices. Others started having children before they finished school, established a career or job skills.
    The so called "lazy people" usually have parents, siblings, and friends they mooch off of. They're too proud to stand in the cold begging for money, sleep in shelters,  or dine in soup kitchens.

  3. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 9 months ago


    Yes, giving aid to the poor is an exercise in utter futility.  Dr. David Hawkins, M.D., Ph. D stated that the very worst thing one can do to a poor person is to give them aid.  Dr. Hawkins indicated that when a poor person's life is made easier, h/she loses his/her incentive to do better socioeconomically.   I wholeheartedly concur.   It is a total waste of socioeconomic resources to give aid to poor people.  Resources can be better spent in teaching poor people to be socioeconomically self-sufficient & independent.

    In the United States, there is a strongly implanted welfare system.  Welfare was initially intended as a temporary socioeconomic salve, it wasn't intended to be a permanent lifestyle.   However, there ARE people who have been on welfare.....FOR GENERATIONS-GENERATIONS!   There are also people who fleece the welfare system w/our hard-earned tax dollars.  It would be better if such people were taught how to be socioeconomically self-sufficient.   Yes, social programs are a total waste of time.  Such social programs should be cut from 80-90% which would make people become socioeconomically self-sufficient.   If more people worked, we would keep more of our tax dollars.  Also, if more people worked, they wouldn't have time to do negative things.  Many people have children on welfare for the purpose of getting EXTRA money.

    Teaching poor people to become socioeconomically self-sufficient is far more profitable than to inundate them w/socioeconomic aid through social programs which only makes them lazier & more entitled.  When there was very little welfare, poor people learned that if they wanted something, they had to work for it.  Let's return to that!

    There is the old proverb:

    Give a man a fish and you feed him a day.  Teach a man to fish and you feed him a lifetime.  Teaching the poor to be SELF-SUFFICIENT is FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than to SUPPORT & AID them socioeconomically.  Think on that!

  4. Glenis Rix profile image99
    Glenis Rixposted 8 months ago

    You make broad, sweeping statements and stereotype the poor. The poor are always with us (Matthew 26.11) You have visions of a Utopian situation that is unachievable. Some people live in poverty which is outside their locus of control.  Certainly, encourage training and work programmes for the unemployed. Until they have reached the happy state of self-sufficiency that you suggest are we to let them starve?

  5. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
    wba108@yahoo.composted 8 months ago

    I agree with your sentiments, giving to the poor often traps them in a cycle of dependency. This is particularly true when the issue is politicized at the federal level and used by politicians to buy votes and to build a constituency based on maintaining a permanent underclass dependent on government largess.

    Helping the poor should always be done on a local or individual basis where accountability can be maintained and where a person can bare some of the consequences of their poor and irresponsible decisions. A hand up is much better than a hand out. A hand out is often demeaning and self defeating, a hand up is neither and is what true giving is all about. Almost everybody needs a hand up at some point in their lifetimes and is nothing to be ashamed of.

  6. Craig Easom profile image82
    Craig Easomposted 6 months ago

    I am one tier to the side of complete criticism on everything that is as a result of parliamentary power and control. The Pound is weaker than it has ever been before, and the working class people are suffering as a result. It is poor people that give birth to the poor people of tomorrow. The government effects nothing in your life, but without a close eye on the ball the government can gain unnecessary complacency. Through complacency, the government screws up and we are more prone to wars and violence.

    Forget the homeless people and the poor. It is these people that have been underused in the current infrastructure of the country's power. In the 1930's the world was ready for a power struggle, and wasn't World War II started on the basis of poverty alone through Europe.

    Hey, I know the fix, let's start another war. Not saying that this should be the kind of war that spreads from one side of the planet to the other, but at least in war we see the uniting of society. We all fight for one cause bigger than our own. Heck, at least in an international war involving the UK our country could benefit from some harsh lessons of balancing good with evil.

    Basically, the question... Poor people... more poor people... ick... more poor people. This should lead to an international war. Yeah, but America would intervene, and win the war for us. Give Britain a chance, we can win a war without the harsh toned accents of the help.

    War. More war. We want more war. Poor people can fight in the war. Our economy will suffer more than I would want to hear about, but war solves some of the worlds greatest problems. Yeah, but America, the US, and Russia are boasting the greatest power the world has ever seen with nuclear weapons. Yeah, we have them to. We just aren't sure if ours would work in practice. Come on, Britain is in strong need of a war.

    Blah, blah, blah... what we need is a war. Oh no, the world would be tested for each individuals nations survival as a controlling force in the world. Our army is probably so poorly trained that they would be beaten in the first week of a war declaration. Whatever, but don't you feel the modern world could benefit from a war.

    Maybe?... (Come to think of it, the post writer here sounds kinda evil)