Monday, September 05, 2005

FEMA - Welfare or Charity?

We as Americans have a bad habit of looking to Washington to “Fix” any and all problems.

Welfare is one of those problems that we look to the Federal Government to solve.

So, how should we handle Welfare? Let’s look at the proper way to deal with people who are not able to fend for themselves through no fault of their own.

There is a hierarchy of responsibilities that should be observed. Here is the order of priorities:

1. First people should be responsible for their own sustenance if at all possible.
2. Next come families and friends.
3. Next come the local Churches.
4. Next comes the Local Government.
5. Next comes the State Government.
6. And then finally comes the Federal Government.

We as a Nation have this order reversed! The first place everyone looks is to the taxpayer’s pockets.

Imagine if the way we would collect the needed money for FEMA was that a soldier came and pointed a gun at you and said we need $500.00 from you to help the people affected by the Hurricane. And if you don’t give you will be jailed. This is the effect of Federal taxes used to help the poor. If it is not given freely with no coersion, it is not Charity it is Welfare. And the giver will not get the blessing because he had no choice.

Here is the way it should work:

It is back in the days of the Wagon Train. You and some others have just hired a Wagon Master to take you from the East to the West. You and 15 other Wagons are paying the Wagon Master to be your government. He is to protect you and govern you for the duration of the trip.

Now suppose during the trip, the Widow Jones horse that is pulling her wagon gets killed. What should the Wagon Master do?

1. Ask for donations to buy a horse from Mr. Smith who has 20 extra with him.
2. Ask for Mr. Smith to just give Widow Jones a horse.
3. Ask Widow Jones to see if Mr. Smith would let her do clean up and washing/ironing jobs to buy a horse from him on credit.
4. Just have the Wagon Master tell Mr. Smith that the Wagon Train members voted to have the horse taken from Mr. Smith to give to the Widow Jones and he has no say. He is told that he will be under arrest if he declines.

Now, if you said any of the above except #4 then you are on the right track to being fair to your fellow beings. But if you said #4 then you are for Welfare and are not a fair person because you believe that in order to help someone the only way possible is to punish one person in order to help someone else. Rob from the rich to give to the poor.

This is where we are as a nation. We think the answer to the poor is to do the only immoral thing on the list of ways we can help, because we have lost our faith in the kindness of our neighbors.

May God have mercy on those who feel “robbing from the rich to give to the poor” is a moral act.

18 Comments:

At 9:40 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

You are a libertarian! :-)

 
At 7:36 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Is it catching?

Is that a good thing?

:)


Really, I am almost libertarian but not fully. I call myself a "Far" right guy.


FAR.

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

P.S.

ii, see my latest comment on your post "Criminalizing Sin"


FAR.

 
At 7:59 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Cool. I responded.

 
At 10:15 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

By the way, if you have read anything from Ayn Rand, you will see strong parallels between this post and her philosophies.

 
At 12:17 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

A great article from antiwar.com that echoes your post:

http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=7147

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

I bought "Atlas Shrugged" and got through about 100-200 pages and then got frustrated by the 600 or so pages, if my memory serves me. This was back in the mid '60's.


FAR.

 
At 2:25 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

I read the article. I have read that about 80% of the Guard is still here in the U.S.

This is definately where we need them. If only 20% go to Iraq for a little while, we shold be able to handle that.

I agree with most of the article about rewarding the people furthest from the problem.


FAR.

 
At 2:26 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Oops, I meant to say.."not rewarding them."

FAR.

 
At 3:59 PM, Blogger fetching jen said...

"Welfare" is defined by Websters as "the organized effort of the government agencies granting aid to the poor, the unemployed, etc." It is a "poverty program" for which one does not have to work to be paid.

What do you mean the recipient has no choice. Sure he does - he can work instead of receiving welfare.

fj

 
At 4:55 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Jen,

No, I mean the taxpayer has no choice but to fund the program even if the recipient can work.

We can't choose to have our taxes be earmarked for only proper programs.


FAR.

 
At 10:55 AM, Blogger Alan said...

Hey,

Today is the first time I've checked out your blog. Pretty nice. Int. Insurgent is a frequent comment-er on my blog, The California Conservative. I found your site because you commented on the Insurgent's site.

Another small-world observation: I notice that you're a Western Alliance member. That's great. I've read Hogue's blog, and the HS Conservative blog several times.

Anyway, check out The California Conservative anytime. It's at alanmanning.blogspot.com. Thanks!

 
At 1:40 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Alan,

I visited your blog and made a few comments. Nice Blog and thanks for visiting mine.


FAR.

 
At 1:27 AM, Blogger pappy said...

Heres a good lesson in welfare mentality. Every afternoon when I went to work at a major hosp. in Sacramento I gave a creamsaver (candy) to everyone I worked with or was nice to me. Every day I would change flavors (there are about 7 different flavors.) I did this for well over a year. People started calling me the candyman. Well it got to the point when I came to work people would automatically put their hand out and expect a creamsaver. I even had a Dr. look for me on the fourth floor were I floated to that day so he could get his treat.
So to me this really demonstrated that when people get things for nothing they start to expect it no matter what.

 
At 5:44 AM, Blogger Lucy Stern said...

I wonder if any of those people pappy gave candy to, ever gave him anything in return as a thank you? Even a verbal thank-you.

I pick up day old bread, cakes, pies & etc. from our local grocery store for our church pantry every week so that the people coming could get a treat along with their food order. As of last month I had to stop doing that because the people were "expecting" their items. They even had a man and woman fighting over a cake and the storehouse manager told me that they didn't want to items anymore because it was causing problems. It just went to show me that some people don't appreciate what they get.

Far Right, Years ago, family took care of family. When Grandma got old and could no longer take care of herself, her children took her in and took care of her. She didn't get social security and live by herself. Back then people saved money for their old age and took care of themselves. We have several generations now that think that the government is supposed to take care of you. It is just not so....

 
At 6:44 AM, Blogger chad said...

FAR,
I have to put in my "moderate" 2 cents on your welfare comments. I agree with your hierarchy for who should be responsible for social problems. It makes no sense if Donald Trump's children collect unemployment, because Daddy should obviously be able to take care of their needs. We do have the order reversed with our entitlement mentality that the federal government is responsible for our well-being. The smaller order charitable activities of families, churches, and community organizations will usually be very efficient, because of their intimacy with those in need. There is less red tape, and less abuse of their efforts. As programs grow in scope, they become fraught with bureaucracy and fraud. So I think you have the right general order for the responsibility of the welfare of our citizens.

BUT, the Katrina disaster actually highlights the need for federal level relief programs to be in place, because the resources of local and even state level organizations can be overwhelmed by catastrophes of this magnitude. Federal welfare programs are essentially social insurance policies that distribute risk, so that all Americans live in greater security. Just like health insurance distributes risk so that we can live with less fear of catastrophic illness, federal social insurance is necessary to provide security against the perils of society - be they natural disasters or economic ones. The Great Depression is an example of a time when the relief resources of local agencies were overwhelmed, and only massive Federal Aid could provide escape from social collapse. I think this is an important benefit of a well developed Federal Government, not only for protection from without (military), but social security within. There are certain social insurance endeavors that only the Federal Government is capable of.

I have a give a nod to Pappy's comments that weaning beneficiaries from these programs can be difficult, but they still remain necessary for a strong and healthy Great Society.

Your entitled brethren,
chad

“Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

 
At 11:46 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Chad,

I think you still can follow the same priority even with the disaster.

The government should always be the last resort.

Entitlement programs are only there because the government is forcing money from those who have it to give to those who don't.

Charity is Charity only when it comes from people's heart, and not from a government that only got it by force.

Kind hearted citizens give over 2 billion per year from their heart. That is more than any other citizens of other countries. I am not talking about what other countires governments give, but it's citizens.

We are only truly free, when we are economically free.

If we care for one another, we show it by giving through charity from our heart.

If we don’t care for one another, we vote to have the government force money from our neighbors and us and give most of it to administrators and a small token amount to the needy.

This builds a cycle of dependence upon those that receive the handout from the government. Another reason this cycle is a problem is it destroys self-esteem of the recipient.

If you lend someone money there is a good feeling of the person who is paying the loan back that they are being responsible and a valuable member of society.

But, when the government gives other peoples money to someone, then the recipient feels bad that they had to get a handout, they feel like they are beggars.

The Democrat party and the Left leaning Socialist idealogs in the United States want to keep people dependent upon their handouts because it gives the Democrats power.



FAR

 
At 7:21 AM, Blogger Awakelive said...

This Article proves just how brainwashed Americans have become, Welfare is the government establishment of the ACTS of Christian Charity. this is exactly what the colonist left Europe for. remember "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" of course it is not charity anymore now it is government established forced Acts of Charity. Care for the poor is care for the poor, healthcare is healthcare, education is education, they are one in the same government established the Christian ACT of charity in the social security ACT. See-- http://awakelive.wordpress.com

 

Post a Comment

<< Home