Jump to content


Photo

helping the poor


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:10 PM

I believe that some of our social problems today comes from the judeo-christian emphasis on helping the lowest members of society. This is also a feature of modern "liberalism" (especially Rawls work) and of course Marxism. it is entirely pervasive through the spectrum of social and cultural philosophies in the West.

The problem I have is that our culture and law rewards incompetence and bad behavior. Rather than attempting to help all people do better (and neccessarily leave some behind) it pours all of its resources into the lowest people.

Schools

Our schools pour most resources into the lowest performers. This often neglects the above average the most, but also neglects the average. As a result our schools are losing international competitiveness. Asia pours resources into their top students, not their bottom ones.

Welfare

Welfare pays better than a job at the bottom of society. People who make bad decisions get bigger checks. Incompetence leads to a lifetiime of disability checks. Every generation is getting dumber and average IQ dropping due to social policies that reward incompetence and poor behavior.

Let's imagine Schlomo Moneybags decides to do some philanthropy. He comes down and visits a working class neighborhood. He first sees Billy Bob. Billy Bob is average intelligence. Billy Bob worked his butt off and did the best he could. He could have partied or could have given up but he stuck in there. He paid his taxes, he did the right thing, but he can barely get by. He doesn't have any kids because he decided it would be irresponsible to raise kids if he can't give them adequate resources.

Schlomo nods his head. This guy isn't pathetic enough to help.

Next he comes upon Lazy Schmoozy. Lazy could have worked hard, but decided smoking crack was more fun. he has 10 kids and hasn't taken a bath in a week. He learned years ago that big crocadile tears is better than hard work. Scholomo buys the guy a new house. After all poor guy has 10 kids to feed.

And this I think is the problem with our culture today. If you live at the bottom you might as well play dumb, not work and make every bad decision possible, because your life is easier if you do. in the same way you also want to come from the lowest most underperforming group as well because they will get the biggest reward.

Maybe we should challenge our assumptions and make charity a little more equitable instead of focusing on the supposed "most downtrodden".

A lot of people go to get help and they are turned away because they never committed a felony, they don't have 20 kids, they scored too high on a test etc. is this really the message we should send to people? That they are worth less because they made good decisions, are intelligent, work hard etc.?

#2 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:31 PM

I found this article:

http://www.yutorah.o...oward_What_Goal

There seems to be some dispute as to whether charity is primarily for the poor or primarily for building synagogues and furthering Judaism. What I see coming from most Jewish organizaitons is that money is used to help Jews, build synagogues, fight anti-semtism etc. and nearly nothing to help the poor typically.

However from what people write on this forum there is some demand to give to those most in need (maybe also shared by some very liberal synagogues). This seems in line with contemporary liberalism (John Rawls states that the neediest should get the most help) and with communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to need).

The above article simply speaks of helping the "poor". I'm not sure how we define this. But rather in contemporary culture it seems the rule is to help those who are worse off. The poorest of the poor being given priority.

Although there is something in Judaism about helping people maintain their dignity (help a former millionaire make back his millions for example). It simply seems that what I'm hearing from Jews is a call to help the poorest. This also is taught in Christianity, through secular culture etc.

Is it anymore noble to volunteer your time to help a person too stupid to support himself than it is to help a person who is capable but who underwent harsh circumstances?

What I have noticed is that typically circumstances don't matter (even though they are given lip service) in regards to charity. What matters is the dumber, the more criminal, the worst types of human beings are given the most charity. It's socially destructive.

Let's imagine that we have two people who are from the same circumstances. One guy goes out and buys some nice clothes, shaves himself, is well spoken etc. the other guy reaks of vodka, wears rags, and is somewhat incoherent. They both go into a welfare office and visit local charities. Who will get the most help? The guy in rags mumbling incorrent things. They will always say he "needs" it more. In fact he doesn't.

Usually such people are black holes of wealth. They get the most help, but they simply consume and burn everything they get. By contrast a dollar invested in the man who has more inward quality is actually used most efficiently and makes a real difference.

And it is similar a woman will always get more help, a minority will get more help and a person with children will have more help.

And I have a lot of personal experience with this.

I lived next to a guy about the same age as myself. He scored low on an IQ test so he got a check from the government every month for being "disabled". He was perfectly capable of working at an entry level job. He also got free medical care. He would go the emergency room on a regular basis and doctor shop for pain pills so he could get high.

Medical bills and social security check together equaled around $100,000 a year the government was spending on him, plus his own social worker which ran about another $15,000 in expenses. Plus he got food stamps.

The guy was miserable. He lived in squalor and his life sucked, despite huge amounts of resources pouring in. He did no work and contributed nothing meaningful back to society. One day he wanted new furniture. He calls up a local church, does some crying and they buy him new furniture.

I lived next store. I worked at a low wage job. I was bringing home about $10,000 a year and actually earning my store around $100k a year with my labor (sort of the mirror opposite of the other guy). I actually was dressed better, had a vehcile, nicer living conditions etc. than the other guy. The only difference was my own actions.

Even though my income was lower than my neighbors I didn't qualify for food stamps etc. because I wasn't "disabled" (didn't score low enough on IQ test I guess). If I went to a church and asked them to buy my furniture for me they would probably laugh at me.

I guess the key to life would be to purposely flunk an IQ test, to purposely live like a nasty person, make poor choices etc.

I have seen this repeated time and time again all around me. Poor choices are rewarded by our social system and its bankrupting our society. For example, the huge cost of medicaid and medicare is because of guys like this who run to the emergency room every time he stubs a toe and demands a bottle of pain pills. If he doesn't get, he just walks to the next hospitol.

He also had several children that were all taken away and raised by the state. I'm not sure of the total cost of those. Probably totalling somewhere in the millions. Not to mention the cost to incacerate him, plus the fact that he vandalizes property etc.

People who work hard and do the right thing live in poverty in our country so that a single low life can run up millions of dollars in social costs. But this is not one person. Now due to the high rate that these people reproduce at (and the fact that the state takes care of their children) we now have entire cities full of such people all across the nation.

Wouldn't charity make more sense if it focused on helping people that need help rather than those who make poor decisions?

Like saying:

I'll help you if you get off the drugs, get a job etc.

I'll direct my charity at people who it will help the most (those that help themselves)

instead of directing charity to the absolute worst people?

Unfortunately some of these people may need to go die of an overdose or something instead of spending $250,000 a year so they can live in the ghetto smoking dope. But really it doesn't seem fair or just that hard working, law abiding people live in poverty so such drains on society can go about their lives.

It seems like anytime someone wants to do something about this, it is attacked by liberals, such as when they wanted to give drug tests to welfare users.

Well I know personally of someone who smoked meth while pregnant, gave birth to a retarded baby as a result, and because of this gets a large social security check every month. Shouldn't somebody be put in prison for harming their children rather than being cut a big check?

Yet if we drug test such people we have a big protest by the liberal media.

It's hard for me not to believe that there is something sinister behind this. As if law makers are purposely destroying our nation for some reason. At any rate it makes me a firm believer that our entire society is on the verge of a total collapse. So yeah I'm into doomsday prepping myself.

But at least in our personal lives wouldn't it be better to engage in rational charity?

#3 Guest_halevy_*

Guest_halevy_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:59 PM

-

#4 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 10:03 PM

Schlomo Moneybags ...
Lazy Schmoozy.


When someone talks like this I assume they have limited intelligence. Its not that I care about political correctness per se. It is more a matter of etiquette and good manners. If a person doesn't understand the social norms and opens their big yap, even to say something quasi-intelligent, it is impossible in fact to address the comment thoughtfully, because it does not respond to the social norms. The person hasn't figured out how to talk politely so theyre going to get rude or shuttered answers. Same for all deliberately provocative statements. They lack intelligence. Believe me, you get what you pay for.

Yeah, that's spot on. The globalist movement (consciously acting), backed by the socialists and all other useful idiots (unknowingly backing the initiative), are destroying the traditional family-based society in order to create an utter vacuum where the omnipotent nanny State can assume full power.


The rich are getting richer, that's a fact...

The Torah says to care for the widows and orphans. It is a pillar of the creed...

#5 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 02:35 PM

Those names aren't meant to be offensive, just comical.

That is great stuff halevy.

I think the rich getting richer is just a short term thing and an act of stupidity. Let's imagine you find some oil on your property, hit the lottery etc. you could burn up and consume all your wealth and appear to be "getting richer" in the short term, but in the long term heading over a cliff. Or you could take out a lot of loans and appear to be doing better than everybody else, but it all collapses long term.

In the same way, the wealth of the upper class mostly rests on businesses and industries that are highly dependant on the well being of society in general. Essentially much of the West is turning into a Mexico or Brazil (especially in the U.S.). The middle class is dissapearing. Nearly all the record profits rest primarily in lowering wages for most average people and providing inferior goods and services.

In the short term these people are making bigger profits, but if Mexico is such a better place to live and do business they would be moving there. But also our education system is broken etc. I think Germany is actually a pretty good social and educational model. Although primarily the problem we have is that big money controls government and that the people who vote are uneducated. If we had some requirement for full citizenship (for example to serve in the military two years, graduate from high school and not have any felonies on your record- similar to Germany and Israel)- then our democracy would be a little stronger, rather than letting everyone vote.

The nanny state socialists I guess are working to make us into the USSR and the Republicans want us to be like Mexico. Neither one is good.

That Jewish morality is really great. If only the majority of people in society held these views rather than supreme court justices and presidents quoting John Rawls.

#6 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 08:59 PM

I think the rich getting richer is just a short term thing and an act of stupidity. Let's imagine you find some oil on your property, hit the lottery etc. you could burn up and consume all your wealth and appear to be "getting richer" in the short term, but in the long term heading over a cliff. Or you could take out a lot of loans and appear to be doing better than everybody else, but it all collapses long term.

In the same way, the wealth of the upper class mostly rests on businesses and industries that are highly dependant on the well being of society in general. Essentially much of the West is turning into a Mexico or Brazil (especially in the U.S.). The middle class is dissapearing. Nearly all the record profits rest primarily in lowering wages for most average people and providing inferior goods and services.

In the short term these people are making bigger profits, but if Mexico is such a better place to live and do business they would be moving there. But also our education system is broken etc. I think Germany is actually a pretty good social and educational model. Although primarily the problem we have is that big money controls government and that the people who vote are uneducated. If we had some requirement for full citizenship (for example to serve in the military two years, graduate from high school and not have any felonies on your record- similar to Germany and Israel)- then our democracy would be a little stronger, rather than letting everyone vote.

The nanny state socialists I guess are working to make us into the USSR and the Republicans want us to be like Mexico. Neither one is good.


Your comment doesnt make sense. You talk about the middle class disappearing but the rich are not really getting richer. Which one is it?
You seem to suggest that greater economic justice is inevitable but then you suggest that the economic problems are unfixable. Which one is it?

#7 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:01 AM

The comment does make sense. Also I don't know if you are trying to be an anti or trying to take the discussion seriously. Your questions are too good for an anti. Example:

"I like blue boats because they make me feel good"

annoying question: "Why do you like blue boats?"

good question: "Why do they make you feel good?"

A good question is actually enhancing the discussion. Since you are asking good questions (albeit already answered ones) you aren't doing a good job as an anti.

Anyway:

A sinking boat lowers all ships. The rich are getting comparitively richer. The number of rich people will shrink and their overall quality of life might be affected in various ways (sometimes not measured by wealth, but mostly a product of the society they live in). For example, if you are rich and live in parts of Mexico you will need to spend a huge amount of money putting armor on your car and hiring body guards in order to deal with crime.

I lived in the city of Cincinnati and one Mexican who lived there told me it was exactly like Mexico, but with paved streets. And the city does look third world, the crime rate is phenemonal, corruption high etc. In every way the city is like a micro-cosmic third world society. And I see this over and over again in every American city I visit. Interestingly even as early as the 1990s this area was noteably different! The decay actually started (interestingly enough) during the desegregation era of the 1960s. Prior to the 1960s the city was actually very nice.

People from Cincinnati sometimes look at me with disbelief when I say this. Their aunt bertha has a nice home in a nice neighborhood in Cinncinnati. But there are only a few nice neighborhoods. These are shrinking everyday and being over run by third world conditions. People are moving out as fast as possible. The few civilized enclaves are usually less than a square mile large and surounded by extremely high crime ghettos (where people get shot, mugged etc. regularly). And most of the residents of "Cincinnati" live far outside the city and commute to work. They keep moving further and further away from the city in order to escape the tumor like growth of crime, poverty, decaying buildings, corruption etc.

I was actually surprised to see that statistics show the United States has been gaining GDP. I believe these results are somewhat skewed as we have increasing costs associated with a less educated/capable work force, higher crime, decreased opportunities etc. Most wealth has been created by printing money and "selling" it to other nations, as well as associated import imbalances (something that cannot continue forever).

So I would project the overall pie getting smaller in the future, which harms everyone. A strong middle class is a key feature of a society with high per capita GDP. Let's imagine we destroy the middle class and you are a multi-millionaire. Now you want to open an auto factory. Yet your workforce consists of high school drop outs who were born to unwed teenage mothers. Drug use is rampant, crime is high etc. Your factory is not going to find good quality workers. This is already happening all over the United States.

The only use for such impoverished people are totally unskilled jobs. Usually this would involve extracting natural resources, such as mining ore out of the ground using primitive techniques, harvesting lumber, primitive farming techniques etc. and this is what we see in the third world, but the huge under belly does not support an advanced, industrialized nation.

So your ability to make wealth is hampered by the missing middle class.

Three solutions need to be imposed:

1. Eugenics. Teenage crackheads should not pop out ten or twelve babies. People with limited income, criminal histories, drug addictions etc. should have a limit on the number of children they could have and this would be taken care of by a state funded "tube tying" or vysectomy. Noteworthy: many poor people actually want these procedures but can't pay for them and they aren't covered by their health insurance.

What this prevents is an excess of people born who can never be educated no matter what the resources and are unlikely to be productive to society due to extremely poor childhood experiences (which usually result in trauma- it's humane for the would be children and society as a whole).

2. Education: We need quality education. The focus should be on educating those with high ability and those who want to learn rather than pouring limitless resources into children that don't want to learn, don't want to be in school etc. and eventually drop out and score poorly anyway. Currently a poor person with a high I.Q. and ambition usually does not reach his full potential, due to excess resources going to those who have no ability (disabled) and those who fall behind.

Beyound that, rather than giving out useless liberal arts degrees community colleges need to focus on filling in demand job qualifications that employers need.

Education (b) Citizens should be educated on basic political theories, rational studies and impacts of various ideologies, undersatnd the political system, economy etc. in order to be informed voters. Voting rights should be restricted among the feeble minded and those with excessive felonies. Rather than encourage "everyone to vote" we should run a campaign to encourage informed people to vote. Every uninformed vote actually cancels out a well educated and rational vote. So higher voter turn out should not be desirable in any serious "democracy" or republic, but rather a high regard and respect for the institution in which people do not vote unless they are informed. Rather instead most people vote today based on two second sound bites that are devoid of any real information at all.

3. Legal and fiscal policies that encourage middle class jobs and opportunities. This includes a progressive tax system, import tariffs, small business help etc. Erase the racist policies that discriminates against white males recieving the same opportunities. Instead treat all people equally based on the content of their character and the merit of their abilities.

Greater economic justice is invitable: Yes on the macro scale. A foolish society will fall. A well goverened one will typically do well. Chance can happen to all though.

Economic problems are unfixable: I am one person. I am not dictator of society. My bet is that society is heading over a cliff and I'd like to find ways to prepare for that myself. I cannot always change the decisions that other people make or change the other 50 million people around me etc. I don't believe that the majority of society are rational and I think our culture is typically counter productive.

#8 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:03 PM

Sounds like you want to kill off all the old and mentally retarded people. Have fun with that.

#9 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:51 AM

Yes now we have a good anti reply. There is nothing about killing anyone. It's called planned parenthood, but state funded. I never mentioned old people lol

#10 Rivka5768

Rivka5768

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:26 AM

I am not Jewish, so I don't know the ins and outs on charity. However, I think people get too caught up in the details. Charity shouldn't involve a rift in the heart. Compassion should be shown to all walks of life. Poor, Rich, Man, Woman, Animal, Plant, Self....

#11 Pinchas

Pinchas

    Make Aliyah!

  • Members
  • 13,421 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:43 AM

One shouldn't give away more than 1/5 th of his wealth to charity.

And one should try to never accept charity at all costs wherever possible to avoid it.

Pinchas is right - micha

 

For the record, IRL he is a really nice guy! - HappyDuck, Z"L





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users