If you could reform welfare type benefits

[LDAHL]

Or for their religion, for that matter, though I believe religion is best practiced, as Jesus suggested, alone in a closet (Matthew 6:6).

I suspect your ancestors would chide you for misreading that particular text.

Matthew was referring to prayer, not the complete practice of the faith. Actions informed by faith should probably be the most important and visible aspect. Saint Francis said (or at least is said to have said) something like we should preach the gospel, using words where necessary.

[JaneV2.0]

Makes you wonder is the assistance for the people receiving it? Or for the employers so they can pay low wages?

I'm reading $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America and their assertion is that there are more active stamp collectors in America than welfare recipients, since TANF replaced the old system. Interesting read.

[JaneV2.0]

I suspect your ancestors would chide you for misreading that particular text.

Matthew was referring to prayer, not the complete practice of the faith. Actions informed by faith should probably be the most important and visible aspect. Saint Francis said (or at least is said to have said) something like we should preach the gospel, using words where necessary.

You're probably right, and I agree completely with the idea that deeds speak much more loudly than (often hypocritical and self-serving) words.

[creaker]

I suspect your ancestors would chide you for misreading that particular text.

Matthew was referring to prayer, not the complete practice of the faith. Actions informed by faith should probably be the most important and visible aspect. Saint Francis said (or at least is said to have said) something like we should preach the gospel, using words where necessary.

That is one of my peeves with religious text - on the one hand you have people thumping it and "this is what it says and it was handed down from a divine source so we have to follow it as written!". And then when someone else points out something it says, they are told "oh - but that's not really what it means so we have to do something different from what it says".

[iris lilies]

One things I wish we could do here is debate the actual posts of the actual people who post here.

debating all of those religious crazies, who dont come here or post here, seems silly.

Just my wish, no one will oay any mind to it.

[Tybee]

I like this idea, IL, so I am definitely paying mind to it! I will try to do that going forth, I think its a great suggestion.

[catherine]

Anyway, to get back to the OP, not having to be in the position to micromanage people's spending choices with my moral choices while still providing a safety net is exactly why I'm in favor of the Universal Basic Income.

[LDAHL]

That is one of my peeves with religious text - on the one hand you have people thumping it and "this is what it says and it was handed down from a divine source so we have to follow it as written!". And then when someone else points out something it says, they are told "oh - but that's not really what it means so we have to do something different from what it says".

That is true in many cases, but the section of the Sermon on the Mount that starts with " when you pray" doesn't seem all that ambiguous to me.

[catherine]

So here is a real life example. I have three children. One just bought a quarter million dollar house in Texas. He and his wife work in the food service industry. My daughter is a state employee with a husband that works in a privately owned janitorial supply company. They just bought a nice ranch home. And my oldest who works in tool and die, divorced with child support, lives with a girl friend who also works in tool and die. They are looking at buying a $19,000 trailer in a seedy trailer park. All three were raised with the same opportunity, given the same financial supports. And have turned out markedly different due to......choices.

Yes, I think money-sense is hard-wired in a way. I've told this story before, but I love it, so bear with me: When my DS was 7 and my DD was 6, the three of us lived in a hotel in a mall in St. Louis for 3 months. Can you imagine LIVING in a mall with two children? I knew I had to set limits, so I gave them each a $5/week allowance.

DS spent his $5 as soon as he got it and often asked for an advance.
OTOH, the first week we were there, DD saw a pencil case she really wanted in the Disney Store, but it was $30. So she decided to save up for it. Week after week she stockpiled her $5 bills, until she had the $30 she needed for the pencil case. I took her down to the store, and she took the pencil case off the rack, looked in her wallet at the bills, looked at the pencil case, looked at the bills, and then put the pencil case back. At 6 years old, she knew about money vs life energy. It is funny how different people are in the same family.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Anyway, to get back to the OP, not having to be in the position to micromanage people's spending choices with my moral choices while still providing a safety net is exactly why I'm in favor of the Universal Basic Income.

I question how it will work and whether it will be inflationary, for instance imagine everyone gets a $1000 check in the mail from the government, nice huh? But imagine rents go up $1000 soon after - well then so much for actually being any better for that check. Maybe affordable housing would have been a better idea (actually not an idea that has had much success either as far as I know, but you get where I'm going, goods in kind might actually work better. One could see healthcare being another inflationary thing and we might be better off with goods in kind aka universal healthcare. etc.).

I don't really favor micromanaging whether the poor are buying health food or not. I suppose this is supposed to be some kind of compromise position. Ok it's hardly the end of the world to restrict potato chips and candy and cookies (it's just kind of arrogant to pretend middle class people never eat those things, but there are worse sins). But I'm not sure who one is even compromising with. I mean if the current congress wants to cut benefits, they probably aren't going to just cut them for buying cookies. And true AFDC welfare was already eliminated (a compromise?), but it doesn't stop anyone from wanting to cut food stamps, however it really did increase poverty including of course of children.

Someone at the grocery store might be angry at someone using their food stamps to buy Snickers bars, eh well Snickers bars don't provide nutrition, and the angry person maybe needs to grow up. Maybe they work hard at a sucky horrible job for their income and good for them I guess, but getting angry at the person buying Snickers bars isn't actually going to improve THEIR situation in any way. Maybe they need political solutions to improve it (like say the overtime law Obama proposed as they are working a bunch of uncompensated overtime), but cutting food stamps won't do it. So how long should one privilege them doing this in the voting booth because "they feel angry" even if it does no good? (yes of course they and anyone have a right to vote, I mean the concerns are not worthy of much is all, voting out of unthinking anger really isn't all that)