The federal government wants to give money to those in need. Some say it’s about charity but when many people look to the government for sustenance, it leaves those people in a very vulnerable situation. And it’s from both sides of the aisle.
Michael Savage, a man of the right, endorsed requiring that women on welfare have Norplant, the embedded contraceptive, forcibly implanted in them if they want to receive welfare.
“Should we permit women on welfare to keep knocking out babies to increase their benefits? Only an insane society would permit that” Savage reportedly said.
That’s nothing short of disgusting.
Recently, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor Paterson said that people receiving food stamps should no longer be able to use them to purchase sugared soft drinks, particularly soda.
While hardly on the same scale, it exemplifies that the government that gives can threaten and bully those to whom it gives. In short, the more government gives the more power it has. The Democratic Party had made a mainstay of ads saying that you must vote for them or the Republicans will take away what they gave you. The government will seek to control those it purports to help.
Bloomberg and Savage are two sides of the same coin in that individual rights are subjugated to those who know better under the guise of benevolence. True charity doesn’t seek to control. Those who seek to control through charity are wolves in sheep’s clothing. It seems for the first time in a long time the country is starting to see through the disguise.
October 12, 2010 at 4:42 pm
ugh…politics…CA will probably legalize marijuana in a month- this in the state where you can't smoke tobacco anywhere- the law doesn't have a provision for what constitutes under the influence- but we'll get tax money…. (?)crazy
October 12, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Why against always women? Why not sterilize the men who put those women on welfare?
Love what you have to say on this subject!
October 12, 2010 at 5:12 pm
I have absolutely no problem with the government limiting the usage of food stamps. If I'm giving someone my hard earned dollars for food, I have the right to require that those dollars be spent on food that will nourish the body, not junk. There's nothing preventing people from spending their own money on junk. I just don't want to pay for it.
KB
October 12, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Sorry, but I agree that food stamps should not be used for garbage food. I know it's a tough call on what's garbage, but I think most reasonable people agree that soda pop is not food. If it can not nourish your body, it's not food. And, frankly, beggars can't be choosy.
October 12, 2010 at 6:45 pm
This gets down to the fundamental reality that what the government provides is not charity. Not only can it impose limitations, it should. Those limitations should be just, but it would be unjust to those who pay taxes for there not to be limitations that ensure that government assistance be used to actually assist.
Welfare is not social justice.
October 12, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Massachusetts just had a similar expose: welfare EBT cards could be used at casinos.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20101008welfare_card_can_be_swiped_for_booze_slots/srvc=home&position=0
October 12, 2010 at 8:13 pm
When I was a grocery cashier 13,000 years ago, only certain items could be purchased with food stamps or vouchers. They included stock food items, paper goods and baby food. Not soda pop, not liquor, of course, and I am pretty sure it did not cover candy, so little kids angling for a candy bar had to beg for actual money from mommy to buy one.
Didn't hurt anybody I could see. Of course, that's when people were kind of uncomfortable with having food stamps and we learned as cashiers to keep them low on the counter as we counted them out and offered change or rain checks, so they wouldn't be waved around.
October 12, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I've heard of homeschoolers in MA who were forced to give up schooling and be forced back to work in order to continue to receive state assistance. When staying home full time is not recognized as a viable option for either mom or dad, a lot of families and all of society will suffer for it.
This was exactly the point I was trying to get to with that post from Zombie, thanks for reposting it here;)
My husband and I both learned early on in our marriage how controlling government assistance can be, and now we literally scrape the bottom of the barrel to avoid having to go back on it. We know its there if we need it, but that our liberty is at risk if we accept it. I don't mean to be so blunt but that's the truth of it. What's going to happen when I walk into WIC office with my 5 homeschooled kids. Will they also force me to take a birth control class? Or will they select which of the children I can keep and farm out the rest for me? It seems over-reactive to many I'm sure, but its happening in China, and last week it was promised by Chinese officials to continue to happen. And that's for citizens who are in the country, regardless of whether or not they receive assistance. And anyone who doesn't believe this "President" isn't a communist in the same vein as Chinese government officials can just keep on dreaming…
October 12, 2010 at 10:54 pm
You can't even compare what Michael Savage is saying vs. Michael Bloomberg. Completely different. To forcibly plant something in someone's body is horrifying. To say that the govt will give you money to buy food but it must be healthy food is very very reasonable and actually I was thinking about that this week. You can't say that the govt shouldn't have any restrictions at all. That's not logical nor reasonable. Even churches, when giving out money for food, give gift cards to local grocery stores. They don't just hand out cash.
I'm no fan of Bloomberg but surely, we can come up with better examples than that.
October 12, 2010 at 11:24 pm
I agree that the comment by Bloomberg does not tend to the radical. However, I think it is a good example of our common way of thinking of Charity. In other words, I will be charitable as long as you do as I wish. True charity would be rooted in the truth. It would rather than merely redistribute wealth, provide a foundation for hope, and love. It is a self gift. In which the response of the other is not the primary consideration. So, the point is, that cannot run around talking about how much they care about these people, and then play governor of their conscience. They can't have it both ways. The current system merely redistributes wealth and perpetuates the very thing which Matt is talking about. BIGGER GOVERNMENT. More control, rather than providing a means for those who are receiving our charitable tithe to use their free will to make better choices. BIG GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO BE THEIR CONSCIENCE. That is the point. This isn't about charity, it is about control. Make the people dependent on the Government and then you are free to do as you wish. I guess it seems simple even if Bloomberg's comment isn't as radical. It still conveys clearly his will to control those who have been given this money.
Matt does say that it is on a smaller scale. Not sure what the criticism is for. Unless, of course you are a ruddy dem Susan! Well then…it all makes sense. 🙂
October 13, 2010 at 6:43 am
I have a problem with the notion that "government gives". Government can't give – only people can. And while I don't agree with the Norplant suggestion, I have no problem with restrictions on what can and cannot be purchased, food wise, with public funds. It's math, not control or insensitivity.
October 13, 2010 at 9:53 am
Firstly:
the frequency of "there should be a license to reproduce" and similar BS is freaky as all frick. (how about just no rise in bennies?)
Secondly:
how about a radical chance in what "food stamps" are? Make it an actual shipment of food, since that's harder to abuse.
I don't like folks buying soda on my dime; I also don't like pols having the power to choose foods that can be bought specifically. (The broad "no alcohol" and "no candy" is OK; the "sugary drinks" isn't cool.)
October 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Unfortunately, we as Christians have failed. If we, as a whole (I know there are individuals who do, so please don't take this as a blanket statement), were truly caring and providing for the poor as we are called to do, the government wouldn't have to provide programs to feed the millions of people who can't feed themselves. But I know a lot of Christians who frequently get on their soap box about the welfare system who don't lift a finger or shell out a dime to follow Christ's directive to care for the poor. Do some people take advantage of charity? Absolutely. But just because a small percentage will take advantage, doesn't mean that we should ignore the masses and criticize the only programs in place, however flawed, to help these people. Do I have issues with the welfare system? Absolutely. We all do. So let's step up as Christians and render government welfare unnecessary.
October 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm
But I know a lot of Christians who frequently get on their soap box about the welfare system who don't lift a finger or shell out a dime to follow Christ's directive to care for the poor.
How, exactly, would you know? Do you set on top of them all day?
I know a LOT of people take that "don't let the left hand know what the right is doing" thing very seriously.
I support the greater point, but I get really tired of people assuming that just because they don't know that someone did something, they didn't.
October 13, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I wasn't making that assumption at all, which is why I said, "I know there are individuals who do, so please don't take this as a blanket statement." I apologize if it came across that way.
I was referring directly to people that I know with whom I have had this very conversation. I myself have been guilty of the same more than once. I am absolutely against judging others – that is God's place and certainly not mine.
I'm just looking at the world, and I can't help but conclude that if all Christians were giving as we're called to do, we wouldn't be in the state we're in.
October 13, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Again: how do you know? Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.
The US is in a pretty good state. Could be better, but it's unspeakably rare for people to starve to death, the opposite is true; obesity is a big problem. That is amazing, historically.
October 13, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Like I said – I'm referring to people I know, including myself. I'm not making assumptions. We have had this conversation and admitted to each other that we complain about a lot of things that we then do nothing about, and the welfare system and our failure to give to the poor is a topic that we've discussed in length.
You're right – the percentage of Americans starving to death is minimal. Because there are millions of people on welfare.
October 13, 2010 at 4:48 pm
LOT of assumptions, there, especially when you take into account that people don't do stuff because it's already being taken care of by government routes.
October 13, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Forced sterilization/contraception is of course an evil thing.
On the other hand, I think limiting food stamp use to necessities and not luxuries is a great idea.
October 13, 2010 at 9:51 pm
WIC is a great program that is designed for what a majority of responders to this post have been mentioning. They give you checks in which it spells out specifically what you can or can not buy. Milk, bread (whole wheat), cheese, whole grain cereals, baby food, fruits and vegetables, beans. You're not allowed to buy anything that is not prescribed on the checks. It's a very good and healthy program, that helps a lot people in need (women and children as the name says;)
It's like you're stuck between a rock and hard spot sometimes. Either you can stick yourself being poor, in need of services for you and your family that you simply cannot afford. Or you can listen to well-meaning citizens of your society tell you that they don't want you to buy or do such and such on "their tax money". Sometimes that means something constructive like buying a soda, sometimes that means something immoral like not having one more child. Yes, I have been on the receiving end of it, I know what I'm talking about here. I've had women clap their hands in my face when explaining to me why I should keep my legs closed when I'm buying groceries at the store and she "notices all my kids"…Either way its hell.
Charity begins in the heart, not the handout.