Pardon My Political Soapboxing
On a writers' blog that I frequent, a piece was posted about one writer's frustration with people who look down on poor people, and who are angry about having tax dollars taken from themselves to support and help the poor. He was angry to think that people assume that because someone is poor and on welfare, they must be lazy. He brought up some good points about making broad generalizations about people, and assuming the worst just because someone is receiving government assistance. His article sparked a vigorous discussion about whether or not poor people are lazy, and the inevitable leap to compare poor and lazy people to rich and greedy people, condemning essentially everyone. The article and the discussion hit a chord with me, and this is what I wrote in response:
You bring up some essential points here. I, at one time, was the one receiving help, and over the past twenty years, I have worked frequently to help people who happen to be receiving government assistance. It's not my job; it's just something I do. Government intervention is such a slippery slope. The fact is that any time we (as individuals or as an organization or government) choose to be generous, there will be some who will choose to take advantage of us. On a personal level, this can only happen up to a certain point before we make a new choice to help someone else who really needs the help and will not take advantage of us.
When the government gets involved, things become complicated, and the freedom to simply stop helping someone who is not appreciative or who is abusing the system is much more restricted. When it comes to government social programs, greedy and lazy recipients are often smart enough to find corners to hide in (just like their well-coiffed and only slightly better smelling cousins in corporate America), and the ones who really need the help are often told, "Sorry, you made $15 too much last month, trying to help yourself. Next month you'll get nothing from us." (Personal experience here)
The system is flawed, which is why I don't believe in it. The concept is great, which is why I try to help one-on-one. I don't believe it works to expect my government to help my neighbor so that I don't have to be bothered with it. I don't have much to offer, but I try to teach and lift and encourage and support and share what I can. Sometimes it works and sometimes it fails, and that really has very little to do with me.
The people who want to provide for themselves as much as they can are looking for opportunities, compassion, respect, and just a bit of a leg up. They want to live with dignity. They feel better about themselves when they can give something back -- whatever it is that they're capable of.
The people who believe they deserve to have everything they want, regardless of its cost to others around them will never be satisfied until they have all the blocks, and no one else has any. Even then they will find themselves miserable, and will blame the rest of us for that, too.
We are responsible for each other. I just don't trust the government to care the way I do.
You bring up some essential points here. I, at one time, was the one receiving help, and over the past twenty years, I have worked frequently to help people who happen to be receiving government assistance. It's not my job; it's just something I do. Government intervention is such a slippery slope. The fact is that any time we (as individuals or as an organization or government) choose to be generous, there will be some who will choose to take advantage of us. On a personal level, this can only happen up to a certain point before we make a new choice to help someone else who really needs the help and will not take advantage of us.
When the government gets involved, things become complicated, and the freedom to simply stop helping someone who is not appreciative or who is abusing the system is much more restricted. When it comes to government social programs, greedy and lazy recipients are often smart enough to find corners to hide in (just like their well-coiffed and only slightly better smelling cousins in corporate America), and the ones who really need the help are often told, "Sorry, you made $15 too much last month, trying to help yourself. Next month you'll get nothing from us." (Personal experience here)
The system is flawed, which is why I don't believe in it. The concept is great, which is why I try to help one-on-one. I don't believe it works to expect my government to help my neighbor so that I don't have to be bothered with it. I don't have much to offer, but I try to teach and lift and encourage and support and share what I can. Sometimes it works and sometimes it fails, and that really has very little to do with me.
The people who want to provide for themselves as much as they can are looking for opportunities, compassion, respect, and just a bit of a leg up. They want to live with dignity. They feel better about themselves when they can give something back -- whatever it is that they're capable of.
The people who believe they deserve to have everything they want, regardless of its cost to others around them will never be satisfied until they have all the blocks, and no one else has any. Even then they will find themselves miserable, and will blame the rest of us for that, too.
We are responsible for each other. I just don't trust the government to care the way I do.
