The death of charity

Freepers do their best to explain how Dickensian England was awesome, because it didn't have any soul-sucking welfare to make the poor rich.

lurk doesn't remember anyone who starved before 1950.

Way back then, in the straw man day the author kicks over, people worked. And if they chose not to work, they got hungry. And if working people needed a little help for any reason, there was the family, and the neighbors, and the church. And the government didn’t take half of every working man’s paycheck.

Jim Robinson details the awesome life of being unemployed:

Safety net? A warm comfy home, utilities, reliable car, a tv, a phone, an internet account, clothing, medical care and plentiful food are all basic human rights. All Americans and undocumented residents are entitled to them whether they educate themselves, work for a living, steal for a living or just decide to sponge off the work of others. It’s guaranteed by the constitution. Right?

Some Fat Guy in L.A. explains that Democrats are the problem:

Yeah - problem is that charitable people are more than happy to give a hand up to people that need it. However, they are not as kind to those who just want a handout (a k a the rat base).

driftless2 straight up blames 'the black black underclass' for all our woes.

The elephant in the room (and not Republicans) is the fact that about ten percent of the population is a huge drag on everybody else. The black underclass by itself costs anywhere from half a trillion to one trillion dollars through welfare dependency and their staggering amount of crime. That segment, the black underclass, is about five percent of the population and growing. Charity could handle most of the destitute without the gigantic, money-sucking segment of the population that can’t do for themselves and expects to be gratified by the American tax-payer.

The Unknown Republican fondly remembers the day churches could blackmail you into morality.

I am committed to the belief that government charity (welfare state) contributes to the degradation of society. What little benefit it may achieve in supplementing private charity, it loses by allowing people to live anonymous and immoral lives. When charity was handled by churches, people were more interested in community, and when you are involved in community, you are more apt to be watchful of your behavior.

liberals are why yawningotter feels justified not giving to charity:

Not only do handouts create an underclass of exploiters, it creates hostility between them and the producers, and that hostility spills over to those who really need charitable help. God loves a cheerful giver, and nobody in their right mind is cheerful when they have to pay taxes to support welfare that sends less than one third of its budget to the poor, and wastes much of that on fraud and waste, over more direct charitable giving.

Brooklyn Attitude knows it's all moochers now.

The problem is the author argues in favor assistance for all who want it. In the past, welfare was shame, it came with harsh restrictions and rules. Today they beg you to take it and the shame is gone. People live for generations on the dole and are happy to do it. They do not get subsistence benefits, people learn to live comfortably or at least not uncomfortably. There is no incentive to get off, so the ranks of the useless, lazy moochers increases. Such a system cannot be sustained, but that doesnt matter as long as leftists get to feel good about themselves.