Entitlements

[Awf Hand]

Does it seem like the "entitlement" mentality is really destroying our country??

Why do people who've not invested in themselves in the form of education or job training feel they should be paid a living wage at whatever job they might have, rather than what the market would dictate their limited skills should be worth?

How come it is becoming the employer, or the State's responsiblity to make sure that health care and medicine is not only provided, but provided at no cost? :shock:

Just wondering where anyone can see all of this going....

[beemanbeme]

Oh here in Wild and Wonderful West Virginia, its even worse.  They're about to vote another increase in the minimum wage.  Here its already over the national level.  When I asked "instead of raising the minimum wage, why not raise some kids that are worth more than the minimum wage" no one had an answer.  
Here in Wild and Wonderful West Virginia, welfare and free medical and free food and free clothes and pay to take training for a job that you'll never work at is not charity, its a birthright.

[379 Peterbilt]

It is called socialism. The very concept that makes people lazy and unproductive.

There is a version about how thanksgiving was started way back when. It goes something like this - A small community decided that everyone would each be assigned a certain crop to grow, then at the end of the growing season, every one was to share with each other, sorta like the potluck dinner idea. The problem was some folks didnt hold up their end of the bargain, figguring the other growers would do it, and thus they wouldnt have to bring anything to the "potluck" as a result, many went hungry.

It was decided the following year, every man was for himself. This worked becuase folks knew if they themselves didnt grow their food, nobody else would help them, and they would go hungry.

At the end of the growing season, most all the farmers had FAR more food than they would be able to eat, so they decided to share their excess food at a "potluck" which was the very same idea that was to serve the previous year. there was more than enough provisions to go around. To this day, it has been called thanksgiving.

That concludes the epitomy of human nature and socialism. It sounds great on paper, but it doesnt work..

Incorporate this story into todays world, and you get very similar results. Wordwide.....

[jimster]

I guess it takes years of people voting for "stuff" instead of what might be best for their country, which is probably why so many politicians promise "stuff".......
After a while people just figure the government owes them stuff, and this line of thinking starts to carry over into where they work. Then they figure where they work owes them stuff.
Nobody figures all this stuff costs somebody money.

hehe...like the comment about raising kids that are worth minimum wage
beemanbeme, I suppose they didn't have a good comeback for that.
Maybe they should just raise the minimum wage for those kids who show respect and know how to count out the change if the cash register computer goes down.  I was in a burger place once, the "puter" crashed and the lad could not count out the change...LOL!!! Had to help him out, and show him how to count it out backwards like the old days.
My wife and I just shook our heads and smiled a while at that one.

[Daks]

Not everyone has the same skills, nor the ability to acquire them, as other folks. I'm not ready to tell people "sorry, guess you starve". When Jesus said "love they neighbor as thyself", He didn't put conditions on it such as "love thy neighbor as thyself but only if, in your judgment, they deserve that love".

[Brett]

Not everyone has the same skills, nor the ability to acquire them, as other folks. I'm not ready to tell people "sorry, guess you starve". When Jesus said "love they neighbor as thyself", He didn't put conditions on it such as "love thy neighbor as thyself but only if, in your judgment, they deserve that love".

Christ wants us to help those who are incapable of helping themselves. He does not want us to feed the lazy.  Read 2 Thessalonians chapter 3.

[williamlayton]

Well, lets see here, How and why did it begin.
First, it was one of those things that empoyers did to attract good and faithful employees, a bonus, a tool. It was also found that empoyee healthiness was a good thing for the employer-they had fewer health issues and were more in attendance on a regular basis at work.
That was when employers were concerned about keeping good employees. Nowadays that does not seem to be a concern and even may be a detriment for folks to hang around too long.
When I was first starting to be employed, those who did the hiring looked real hard at your employment history. "Job Hoppers" in those days were viewed with some suspicion and even disdain.
Some heatlthcare was not even offered. Both our children were born without the benefit of maternity benefits and my wife, as a teacher, could not teach if she was pregnant-she was declared unemplyable and had to quit-no materninty leave.
Nowadays, employers are unconcerned about keeping folks long term, or so it seems, and the education level has risen to the point that they do not have need of "keeping" good employees, well, at least in the mid-level jobs, and have a ready supply of folks that will work for less benifits.
Things do change and nothing is new under the sun except things forgotten, or, it has been done this way before.
Now, I think, too many business's are run by bean counters who have no concept of any business acumen other than keeping books. they are short sighted and have no concept of basic good business pratices. But, that is my opinion.
it will all end up in an upper-class, lower class structure and the process will start over again with the masses forceing the "haves" to recognize the needs of the employeees.
This is a new world we live in and our generation will not see the end of this process--perhaps the Lord will return again before it happens.
Blessings

[Daks]

Brett, that verse is glossed in the New Jerusalem Bible in the following manner:

"This rule, which aims only at deliberate refusal to work, comes either from a saying of Jesus or perhaps simply a popular saying. It constitutes 'the rule of Christian work'".

If you'll note, I talked about people having different skills. That indicates an inability to feed one's self, not a deliberate refusal to work. Some people aren't as skilled as others, nor do they have the means others have to acquire those skills. That's a lot different from people refusing to work when they are capable of it. The first post in this thread spoke of people not investing in themselves to get better work. That seems to indicate that we are not speaking of an outright refusal to work.

Moreover, I think that this verse is used by many to justify not having to help one's fellow man. It gives someone inclined to look down their nose at another person the Scriptural justification for being miserly. My priest asks us in all cases to consider "what would Jesus do?" and I doubt very seriously He'd say "go ahead and starve, you weren't willing to work for your meal so tough luck".

I stand by my original post. I've seen the Bible used to justify too much bloodshed and violence to be swayed by Scriptural reference alone. For me, Jesus embodied love of the entire world and all of God's creations. Picking and choosing which of God's creations are worthy of help doesn't seem to me to be in keeping with the message Jesus brought us. It isn't up to us to judge, in my opinion.

Opinions vary.

[jimster]

Could be I missed something here, but I didn't read anything from anyone saying they would let people starve, nor did I hear anything about religion till it was mentioned in Daks post.
What I took from these posts is there are a lot of people who will not try or make an effort to use either a skill they have, nor put in the time it takes to reap a reward.
I have found that some of the most giving people around are the very ones that complain about people always wanting more and not putting forth an effort.  The line grows longer as it gets easier to receive what is not worked for.
I personally belive that if a person is hungry I will feed him myself, and have done so. I'll even bring canned goods and other types of food and drop it off, I've done it. I'll not give money though. Nor will I give money to many organizations, they seem to have turned it into a business and drain off the funds to "pay" for people's time to work there.

In any case, not wanting too many entitlements certainly does not mean anyone wants people to starve, and futhermore, agreeing with entitlements certainly does not mean someone won't starve that needs some canned goods dropped off at their house.
entitlements might sound good, but in many cases there is no substance, all show, and too many people get them that don't need them.

[Brett]

If you'll note, I talked about people having different skills. That indicates an inability to feed one's self, not a deliberate refusal to work. Some people aren't as skilled as others, nor do they have the means others have to acquire those skills. That's a lot different from people refusing to work when they are capable of it. The first post in this thread spoke of people not investing in themselves to get better work. That seems to indicate that we are not speaking of an outright refusal to work."

Seems to me we all have more or less equal "means" to better ourselves. I'm not talking about individuals with mental or physical handicaps. Those people are deserving of our help and I do not withhold help from them personally.  The difference is in "drive".  I contend that some people are lazy (don't have the necessary drive) to better themselves and learn new skills to make themselves more valuable in the job market.  Where does drive come from?... It comes from within ones self.  I made the effort to fill out scholarship and loan applications as well as worked menial low paying jobs to put myself threw college.  I don't think that I did anything that is beyond the ability of probably 85% of the welfare recipients who find it too easy and too profitable to let big brother take care of them while they get high and whine about how rough they have it.  Give me a break... if that is not being lazy what is?

[Daks]

Not all of us have equal means. Some are smarter than others, others come from advantaged backgrounds in some way. We are not all the same. I have talents my wife doesn't have. She excels me in other areas. Equality would mean we are all at the same starting line. We aren't.

Who are you to decide that because you could do something, most other people can as well? That is a sort of generalization I hear constantly. "If I did it, you can too." Hogwash. We all have different abilities.

I don't know enough about welfare recipients to make any sort of generalization that isn't just an impression without any substance. I think I am hearing the "welfare queen" argument from you. Reagan did a wonderful job of setting up this image of what people on welfare are like and it fit what we wanted to think about them. It gives us an excuse to dismiss them for a lack of character.

Convenient outlook, in my view.

As for bringing up religion, well, too bad. Everyone is offering their own opinion and that's mine. I didn't read anything saying that coming from a religious viewpoints was not allowed in this thread. I think that on this subject, folks look down their noses at people on welfare, blaming them for their own situation and in doing so, relieve themselves of any responsibility for helping. I've been on welfare and I can tell you, it was humiliating. The smug superiority that I got handed to me along with a handout is echoed in this thread. Walk a mile in someone else's moccasins before casting the first stone.

[nomosendero]

Yes Brett, IIThess. Chapter 3 is easy to understand & Verses 10 & 11 are very to the point.

Even more to the point is I Tim. 5:8 stating that if we do not provide for our own we are worse than an infidel. I think that is quite clear.

Why are there many references to being slothful in the Bible, is it viewed
as a good thing, no but mentioned to point out that being lazy is a bad thing, nothing positive about it.

The principle of "loving thy neighbor" has absolutely no application here
because your neighbors may be thieves, liars, murderers, adulterers, homos, or too lazy to work. Jesus was not teaching us to love those things, but rather love your neighbor but hate the sin. 2 different things
entirely!!

James 1:27 tells us what pure religion is & we can't help widows & orphans unless we help ourselves.

I think this is better on a Bible forum but if the scriptures or Jesus is mentioned a little out of context or incorrectly, then it should be dealt with.  
The Bible does not support entitlements for those who can work, you just can't get there, sorry.

I had to do many unpleasant & hard, hard jobs while growing up in rural AR. , & during College & even a few years after we were married. I believe these jobs can be had to get you by for a while. This was before it
became popular to have the illegals do what others won't do. I know that we all hear that stuff now. Could it be that people have learned to "work the system" & this is why we have to get aliens to this work that others won't do. I am not talking about you here Daks as I do not know what your situation was & we all can be down for a little while, but in general
we can find work.
 
Entitlements: Yes 379 Peterbilt, it is Socialism or income redistribution & yes AWF Hand, it is ruining the country.

Beemanbeme, the question you asked, "instead of raising the minimum wage, why not raise some kids that are worth more than the minimum wage", I think is one of the most logical & common sense questions that I have ever seen!!!

Jimster, I see that happen all the time, even with College Kids & it scares
me!   :eek:
.

[Georgian]

Well, ruling out those who are handicapped, in any way shape or form, I'd say its everyone's own RESPONSIBILITY to look out for themselves and their own family.  I am not, and will not support a bum or anyone that is lazy, who can readily help themselves. I learnt this early in life, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink. You can give ppl all the breaks and help in the world, but if they dont use it to their own advantage to better themselves and just dont want to do so in the first place, then to heck with em. With the exceptions noted above, everyone has a free will to do as he or she pleases in the United States of America, the sky is the limit only if ppl would apply themselves. If ppl would only apply themselves, they would be amazed at what they could accomplish. Now I am not going to pitty or feel sorry or help other ppl who are able to help themselves when I am bustin my butt to better myself.

[Daks]

That a Christian can seriously state that the principle of loving one's neighbor has no bearing on this topic says all that needs to be said about one's view of Jesus' message to the world.

Incredible.

To me, it illustrates the point that people so inclined can find justification in Scripture for just about anything. That's why I don't hang my hat on Scripture and ask instead what Jesus would do. I doubt very seriously the answer coming back would be, as I've heard here, "tough luck, buddy, write if you get work"

[nomosendero]

I did not say that, so I guess you did not read the post carefully, I said we can find work. I also said we can be down for a little while, it has happened to me. Family & Christian friends can help each other. I got a
little help at that time & I have given alot more since then, that's the way
it's supposed to work. None of us said "tuff luck", so no need to try to put words in my mouth just because the Scriptures don't back what you say.

You said in your own post that we should not judge, (the most misapplied
of all scripture), but yet you were quick to judge me. Funny how it normally works that way. It pays to look at the whole picture and make sure that we don't try to justify ourselves.

I believe Jesus would say, get a job & I KNOW that he would not say that
it is the government's responsibility to support those who are able to help themselves.

Excuse me, I need to go to WORK now. Have a nice day!  

[victorcharlie]

2Th 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

[Daks]

Quote:

"The principle of "loving thy neighbor" has absolutely no application here"

I think I'm reading just fine. You wrote those words. I just happen to disagree with them.

I'm also not much impressed with quotations from Scripture. People seem to think that is somehow the be all, end all for discussions. I'm much more concerned with what Jesus said for us to do, how we are supposed to act, than I am with anything else, including what Paul's interpretation of Jesus might be. I can come to my own conclusions about Jesus without relying on Paul.

Furthermore, I've seen Scripture used to justify people being burned at the stake, tortured, drawn and quartered, etc. I've heard Scripture used to justify killing everything that moved in Jerusalem after it was taken during the First Crusade, when knights rode in blood up to their stirrups. I've heard Scripture used to justify the slaughter of the Jews of Mainz, the Byzantines of Constantinople, the Cathars of France. Don't expect me to get too excited that someone is using it to justify miserliness in this case. It has been used too often to justify things that contravene what I think is Jesus' message of love for one another for me to think much of a quotation-slinging discussion.

[victorcharlie]

Love thy neighbor as ye love thy self.  There is a difference between loving someone and rewarding poor behavior.

I love my children but I know that if I don't let them fall they won't learn lifes lessons and thus are bound to repeat the same behavior that brought them problems in the first place.  This leads to them being in the same place only farther down the road.  I prefer them to learn these lessons while young as it gives them more time to recover.  Some learn the easy way and some learn the hard way.  If they must learn the hard way then so be it.  I hate it for them but sometimes until they feel the pain their poor behavior has brought on them they continue in the cycle.  Love is breaking the cycle.

To truly love ones neighbor is to help them learn, not enable them to continue down a path of self destruction.

Johnson's great society program has re enslaved the people it intended to help and has resulted in generations of people who are dependant on the government rather than on themselves.  I don't call that love.

[Daks]

That's one interpretation, for certain.

I just don't think Jesus would have answered that way. He offers salvation as an unmerited gift, no conditions. He loved us enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for an unworthy humankind.

I think the example of His crucifixion means that we should do the same. Sure, help people get out of their predicament by teaching them to fish, but in the meantime, while they are doing that, feed them. And if they don't measure up to our expectations about their behavior, we should recall that we didn't measure up to Jesus' expectations, either.

He still sacrificed for us, despite that.

Seems pretty clear to me what Jesus would do. He's already done it. We just need to follow the example, that's all.

[victorcharlie]

I think Jesus would not want anyone enslaved and public policy forced upon them as result.  They are told they are failures and cast aside rather than being given the dignity of helping themselves.

There are people who do need help, and all of us do from time to time.  When Johnson created the welfare state he assumed these people wern't capable of helping themselves.  He was wrong.   These people deserve better than being made a slave of the state.

What's the saying?  Give a man a fish and he eats once.  Teach a man to fish and he eats the rest of his life.

Being a good neighbor comes not only with giveng but also by teaching from example.

People fear change no doubt.  Yes, it might hurt a little and through pain hopefully will come growth.  I don't see any other way to bring the outcast back into the mainstream and thus enjoy the rights endowed to them by their creator.  Love them by setting them free.

[Awf Hand]

It is interesting to read the comments here on the original topic of "entitlements".

Responses have ranged from "wealth envy" to biblical.

 "Just look at the professional skimmer class earning wealth beyond reason..."  Aren't people "entitled" to work and earn as much as they want to, or as much as the market will pay them for their skills set they have developed?  If they are not deriving this income through force or fraud, I believe that their money is theirs and that no higher human authority should force them to be philanthropic.

Getting wealthy off the labors of others is a bad thing?
Sorry.  The guy putting part "A" into hole "B" on the assembly line doesn't have the decision making ability to determine where best to market the product, or how to manage production costs vs retail price.  There will always be others whose decisions affect the course of more lives than just their own, those people are worth as much as the market determines them to be.  Bill Gates, Bill Ford, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, (gulp) Susan Sarandon, Richard Gere...  Love 'em or hate 'em, they employ a lot more people and pay a lot more taxes than I do.  I would bet that they have paid for more Bradley fighting vehicles, HMV's, and 5.56 ball ammo than anyone who will ever read this post.
Am I "entitled" to those tax dollars for my health care?  How about for my retirement?  My prescription drugs?
If you put 100 random people on an island and gave them some form of "currency", after a year, you would find that 90 or more of those people are working for the natural leader(s) that was required to emerge from chaos, and the leader(s) had all the currency, as well as a pile of IOU's.  “A permanent underclass is necessary..”  -I would argue that it is inevitable, not something that needs to be created, but creates itself.
Are the 90 or more on that island "entitled" to the fruits of the leader's efforts?  Maybe he/she developed a system of water transport.  The communal system will only move as far forward as the strongest link is able to drag the rest.  Our strongest links (in the USA) might be worth 10 million a year, our weakest are worth about 1/400 that amount.   Since the strongest employ and provide fiscal security to more than 400 employees each, I’d say they’re paid commensurate with their decision making ability.

Sorry to pick on TM7: “I find the French Revolution such an interesting period and place.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!     They’ve really shown us what they’re worth ever since didn’t they!!  What a pile of contributions to humanity they’ve made!!!
Now their biggest battle is with a 23% unemployment rate of people 19-26 years old.  The reason this situation exists is because the French decided that their citizens are “entitled” to employment.  19-26 year olds have no employment history and, as such, represent a great risk to hire, because their countries leaders have made it very difficult to fire anybody.  With the 36 hour maximum (or is it now 32) work week, they’ve created a situation where a company like Yoplait or Citroen must hire more people to do the work, thus guaranteeing more people are employed.  Sounds utopian, but the only way you’ll likely ever own a home in France is if it is willed to you.  Work to get ahead –You must be greedy!!  Wanting more than your fair share, forshame!!  They raised arms for freedom and now they’re drowning under the system that they believed would’ve given them freedom from failure.

My belief is that I make pretty good decisions.  If I were given $5000, I would invest it in my company, or use it to pay down debt on my home.  Other people (maybe you’ve seen them) given $5000 would find a way to spend $10000 on new wheels, tires, paint, and speakers for their 5-year-old Mitsubishi Eclipse.  The tires keep rotting off of their house.  In a few years, they will want vaccinations, education, and lunch programs for their illegitimate children, health care for all, and will use their collective vote to seize my earnings and divert it through the system to themselves.  Upper crust celebrities, media, academic types et al. will have me believe that my success is a result of privilege, and these poor souls’ situations are the result of bad luck.  Are they “entitled” to a “get out of debt” bankruptcy when they can’t pay for the Cancun trip they put on their credit card?

Meanwhile, I stand behind them and their ill-behaving brood in line at the grocery store while they talk or send pictures on their cell phone, and pay for groceries that I wouldn’t choose (for financial reasons), wearing 120$ Nike shoes, and paying with one of the new State debit cards that are supposed to improve the esteem of the “impoverished” by not making them handle the humiliating food stamps.  After I pay for my purchases (with money that I earned, not seized from someone else) they are again in front of me at the door where they light up their smokes (are they entitled to smoking cessation programs?) and trundle off to the beat-up Mitsubishi Eclipse.

“Not all of us have equal means.”  I agree with that.  Why then do people feel “entitled” to equal treatment.  I can afford better insurance, shouldn’t I be “entitled” to better care.  I can afford better education for my children, where they learn from books designed to teach, rather than books rewritten with the correct numbers of Jose’s and Keesha’s and Dimitri’s, to satisfy someone’s “entitlement” to representation.  Are their kids “entitled” to new football jerseys every year at the local public school?

“Who are you to decide that because you could do something, most other people can as well?”  I agree with this as well.  Very few people can do what I do, and I’m glad for that.  It keeps me in demand and allows me to charge a lot for my services.  Why then do people feel it is so unfair that I’m able to succeed?  Are they “entitled” to the fruits of my labor by virtue of their need for my services?  Where were these folks when I was busting my butt for 8 years in college, working 3 part-time jobs to make ends meet?  What were they “entitled” to then?  A lot of people make bad decisions.  They know that they're bad decisions at the time they are making them.  Partying instead of studying, hangin’ out instead of working to pay the bills, engaging in risky (sexual?) behavior… all because it was the fun and easy thing to do at the time.  
Now many of those folks are trapped by the series of bad decisions that they’ve made.  They have children and posessions and habits that their limited employment options can't support.  They vote for people who would send agents to my door to seize my “ill gotten gains” and redistribute it to them through a variety of “entitlement” programs. –Try not paying taxes and see what happens-

The story of the grasshopper and the ant is based on biblical teachings.  In Genesis, the joy of the Garden of Eden is put to an end after the Original Sin, man is told that he will have to "till the soil".

Why is it that some don’t want to “pick up a hoe”, or feel they’ve “tilled” long enough, or feel that others are stronger and can “hoe hard enough” for 2 or 10 or 1000, or feel that “hoeing” is beneath them and seek something more gratifying…?

Why are they still “entitled” to the “fruit”?

Being Christian works from both sides of the wealth scale.  Seems like stealing was a top 10 item at one point.  I don't remember anything about giving fruit to he who has ability but no desire to cultivate it.

[victorcharlie]

Good comment.....

Money is just a tool.  It is not good nor evil.  A skilled carpenter will use a hammer and can put up trim without nicking the wood.  Someone less skilled will take the same hammer and bruise the trim rendering it useless.

The quest for money in itself is not evil.   A cold beer isn't evil.  Jesus turned the water into wine.   If the quest for money or for that matter, the quest for a cold beer becomes a desire that cannot be put asside and becomes the only object of our desire without regard for those around us then the quest becomes evil.....not the money itself, nor the cold beer either.  Moderation in all things is the message.

It seems to me that our government still thinks that if they throw enough money at a problem it will make the problem better, thus, the get a bigger hammer theory.  We all know that doing trim work requires a smaller hammer, not a bigger hammer.

The first rule of medicine is do no harm.  Money, applied correctly does good.  Money, applied incorrectly does more harm than good.

The founding fathers said we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  No where in the constitution does it mention any entitlements granted by government.  Madison knows that little money means little government and thus little corruption.  The bigger the government, the more the quest it has for money and the more corrupt it becomes.

I hope, that those who have achieved social status, money and power use it to aid those who have less, not by the free giving of money, but by teaching others the principles of how wealth is aquired.  Sadly, the wealth of some men is used only for the quest of further wealth.  Often, the lessons taught are wrong.  The get it now pay later mentality that the task masters sell as instant gradification is not the lesson I want my children taught.  This is a trap set by the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful while enslaving us and our children.  

Jack Benny was known to be a very rich entertainer in his day.  During an interview he was asked "Jack, you have plenty of money, why do you still work?"  Jack replied "Because I don't have it all".  To some the world is like a monopoly game.  They will never be happy until they have it all.

There is real joy to be had in giving back but not necessarily the giving of the too called "money".

[Daks]

I never mentioned public policy. As a Libertarian, I don't much believe in government programs. I believe all charity should be voluntary and local. Public policy has nothing to do with my comments. I'm talking love of one's neighbor, not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Anytime anyone here starts thinking that someone else's behavior doesn't entitle them to something, try considering that from Jesus' perspective, none of us merit salvation. It is offered as a free gift to unworthy human beings.

Not a bad example for us to live our lives, especially on this subject, when so many in this thread seem to want to ensure that the gifts they give only go to people they think are worthy. If Jesus did that to us, we'd all be denied Heaven.

So maybe worrying about who is worthy and who is not isn't the way to go here.

[Brett]

Daks,
The only fault I find with your example of Christ's salvation is that We are incapable of saving ourselves. So naturally Christ payed the price for us just as He expects us to help the truly helpless.  However, when it comes to earning our way most of us are far from helpless and are capable of performing some type of work.  Do you think Jesus would rather I give an unemployed person the opportunity to work for me and earn his own way or do you think that Jesus would rather I just handed that person a fist full of cash?

If you have an IQ slightly above that of a door mat you can learn to read. If you can learn to read you can learn new skills or improve upon those you already possess.  True not everyone is cut out to be a rocket scientist or brain surgeon. However, if we continue to make the effort we can continue to learn and improve our lot in life.  There are countless stories about individuals who grew up "underprivileged", dirt poor, from broken homes, in drug infested neighborhoods, etc., etc., who have somehow managed to rise above it and made something of themselves. Some even doctors and lawyers and scientist.

[Daks]

I imagine that the dignity afforded by honest work for honest pay would be  what Jesus would want.

But I also think that He'd be careful to make sure that in the end, people got fed one way or the other. Love can't mean letting someone starve just because we want them to act in a certain way we find agreeable.

We don't merit grace. Jesus gives it to us anyway. Maybe the idea of us deciding who is worthy of help is not in keeping with the example Jesus sets for us. Sure, there are good ways to help and ways that are not so good. Having been on welfare myself way back when, I can tell you it is a soulkilling program. I hated every handout.

But I took it because the alternative was starving.

If you want to say you'd prefer to help in a given way over another, that's entirely cool. My beef is with people who figure that since, in their opinion, the recipients are not worthy, they are relieved of any obligation to help in any way.

If Jesus took that attitude with us, where would we be?

[nomosendero]

Daks
We all KNOW why Jesus died on the cross, he died for our sins.  He loves us more than we humans can grasp, but he has never endorsed able bodied people not takeing care of themselves, in fact most of his own parables & teachings make that very clear.   The Spirit & ACT of giving should be ever present with Christians, but Gov. or Employer entitlements were not & are not part of his teaching.

He did extend his love to everyone & everyone can obtain his grace, but
it IS conditional on us obeying him, this is shown in II Thess. 1:8.    I know
that you are not impressed with Scripture, but impressing someone is not the goal, I find it very unimpressive to say what Jesus would say about something without being able to back it up with Scripture, his word is the only way that we can know what he did teach since he left the Earth 2,000 years ago.  

Our Founding Fathers did not set up a program of taking away from achievers to give to non-achievers as we have today. They knew that
charity begins at home & they knew that local communities & Churches would know who was truly needy & the help would go directly to those who need it. When the Gov. runs a program some crooks will skim from the top & some receive benefits who aren't deserving & the Founders had the Wisdom to see this & gave many warning about the pitfalls of big Government. The concept that you mentioned "Robbing Peter to pay Paul"
is Un Christian by definition.

As far as the statement of (some feeling people receiving something only if they act a certain way) goes, I don't know what that means, but if it means that some people feel that those who can work and have the opportunity to refuse to do so, put me in that number.

The subject is ENTITLEMENTS & why they are destructive overall to the Nation or any Nation. I have no indication that anyone on this thread
is opposed to helping the needy, those who cannot fend for themselves &
also those who are down and out for awhile, which are many. Again, for those who don't want to work, that would be their choice & I don't need to pay for it.

Concerning Entitlements from my employer, they don't owe me squat.
Insurance & other benefits are part of an overall package that to me make up part of my overall pay. As someone stated before, alot of this was spured by competition years ago. I do not expect my employer to
pay me more or provide (not give, they have a cost) more benefits than he can afford. If I want more than he can do, I will move on, they just don't "owe me entitlements"

[Daks]

Well, I see the question of entitlements in a larger context than you do, I guess. I see them as part of the larger issue of helping our fellow human beings. Many people I know use supposed faults of the recipients and disagreement with the methodology of the programs to relieve themselves of any obligation to help other people in any way.

If you don't agree with my conception of the question, too bad. I don't think I should have to be bound by how you view this issue any more than you seem to think you should be bound by how I view it.

Being able to back something with Scripture also relieves a person from having to think. Just find a verse that says what you want to believe and presto, instant justification. I don't think it is that easy. Scoundrels have found justification for all sorts of atrocities in Scripture over the years, so all I can say about verse-slinging is so what? Does that mean God is now on your side? Kinda presumptuous, in my view. I'm willing to bet that the entirety of God's message on much of anything isn't encapsulated in a couple of quotes. On this issue, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't accord Scripture the exalted place you do. I think that Scripture is a way of understanding the message of Jesus but it is not the sole way, nor is it all-encompassing. Relegating the infinite to the printed word would seem to me to be impossible, so I don't rely on Scripture alone to come to my conclusions.

Dunning me for robbing Peter to pay Paul is laughable since, if you note, I'm AGAINST it. I believe charity should be voluntary and local, not through government programs. I simply note that many people use the fact that the recipients don't seem to be worthy as an excuse for not helping at all, through any means.

If Jesus did that, where would we be?

That's my point in all of this. I'm supremely unimpressed by quotations from Thessalonians or Colossians or Galatians or whatever. That's Paul's interpretation of the message of Jesus. I have my own and it is just as good as his. God speaks to us all, not just Paul. And I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I note the smug superiority that many people have when deciding the "worthiness" of the recipients of aid. I have to wonder just how that condescension fits in with the message of Jesus.

Find me a verse that allows that.  :roll:

[beemanbeme]

First off I will make the obligatory exclusion of truly handicappped and elderly folks, but I think being on welfare SHOULD be humiliating.  

And I will second AWF Hand's comments.  

Here in Wild and Wonderful West Virginia, the second and third and beyond generations of welfare "professionals" don't seem too humiliated.  In fact, double dipping and how many illegitimate kids you've got is something to brag about.

[nomosendero]

Why would you want a verse when you just said that Sripture was not
the answer & you don't like verse slinging? Ok, parable of the talents is a good start. What did Jesus mean when he said , "you wicked and lazy Servant". Matt.25:26.   Also, before Jesus began his ministry, he helped Joseph as a carpenter. Jesus did this as a child & for years as an adult, actually about 75% of his life. Why? He could have provided them everything through miracles if he wanted to, so I guess he thought that work was good & honorable & the example that he should set, since his entire life was a perfect example. Well, this is a little more than a Verse, as it is part of the first 4 Gospels.

Yes, people have picked a Verse that they like out of context to justify their position, but that is the fault of the person that did it & the fault of the people that followed them because they did not study & were swayed.
That is not a fault of the Scriptures.

It is not important that we agree. I saw the question the way it was presented. Awf Hand asked about the "entitlement" mentality, so EVERYONE in this thread except you responded accordingly.  If you want to tell us that something Blue is really Red, whatever. It doesn't matter, but you may see it differently because you may feel "entitled"
while we don't.

You say that you are against Gov. entitlements, but have stated twice that you were on Welfare. But on a different thread, you indicate the opposite & I also don't know why you participated in something that you don't believe in. You say it was that or stave. Please let me know where that is so that my kids don't move there, makes AR. look like Beverly Hills I guess.

You are absolutely all over the board, but that is your doing.
Yes, we agree to disagree & who cares. But I do feel like it would be nice
to stay on the subject of "Entitlement Mentality" .

[Daks]

The rolling eyes are meant to be a sarcasm. I was asking you to find me a verse that allows us to act smug and superior towards people we find unworthy. The fact that you would TRY, though, tells me that you are working off a much different understanding of "love thy neighbor" than I am.

You keep coming back to the worth of work and as I've said twice before, I don't disagree with that. My problem is when people decide that because the recipient is, in their opinion, unworthy of help that they are relieved of any burden to assist in any way. I don't get that from any message from Jesus. His gift of grace is equally unmerited by us, so I think that He'd probably tell us to stop making judgments, lest we be judged.

You actually undercut your own position by bringing up the fact that people have used Scriptural passages to justify positions that are problematical. If that is the case, how can you be so sure that your interpretation in this case is the correct one? Who is to say that Paul's interpretation, which is what is being quoted here, somehow trumps "love thy neighbor", which Jesus said was the whole of His message? Maybe it isn't a case of either/or but maybe the two work to complete the message? Love thy neighbor but try to help him help himself? Do you see what I'm getting at? People pull individual verses out and trot them around as if having done so, the subject is closed. Pulling out a single verse, isolating it from the rest of the message of Jesus, is not very authoritative, in my view. Putting the verse into a larger context allows a better understanding of what God is trying to impart to us.

Gee, do you think that my time on welfare might have opened my eyes to the problem it presents and changed my views? Ever think that maybe I then realized how awful this program is as administered and my opinions about welfare STEM from my experience on it? Naw, that isn't possible...

Your smug condescension once again shows through when you talk about making sure you and your kids don't move wherever I was. Maybe you have strengths and talents I didn't at the time. Perhaps you are strong enough to not see the options I did. Maybe you haven't been through what I've been through, too. Either way, you are once again looking down your nose at someone and I really can't find any Biblical justification for such a superior attitude. Jesus seems to me to want to help the weak. You seem to think that the weak are inferior. So it goes. Nice Christian attitude. You pick that up on Sundays in your church? Guess I'm glad I don't go there.

BTW, no one is forcing you to respond to my posts. You don't like it that I bring a different outlook to the subject at hand? Too bad.