Sorry Readers for the lack of in depth, detailed posts as of late. I've had a lot on my plates lately, including work obligations (I needed to get 7 weeks worth of work done in 2 weeks), familial obligations, and just general life "stuff" that requires much physical and emotional energy. I've been running on an average of 3-4 hours of sleep per night lately, so my thoughts aren't the most coherent, and I'm not sure how much "ramblings" you want to hear.
But even though I don't have a full post written out, there's been something on my mind lately and I wanted to hear your opinion on it. There's no right or wrong answer, but I'd love to hear a debate in the comments section about your thoughts on this.
Charity.
It's a good thing. It's helping people out that are struggling.
But really- who is deserving of charity?
Is the person (A) who has no job and no source of income, but has no physical problems that preclude him/her from working, and decides that it's easier to be a beggar on the street than to get a job, worthy of receiving charity?
Is the person (B) who doesn't make a lot of money, but makes stupid monetary decisions and is wasteful, and therefore can't keep afloat worthy of charity?
Is a person (C) who does manage to keep afloat by going without things that everyone else has, and living an extreme, extreme frugal lifestyle, and manages to build up a little savings even so- worthy of charity?
What if persons B and C both make the same money, but C makes sacrifices to make ends meet, and B just lives above his means, who is more worthy/deserving of charity?
When I say charity, I mean an individual or a private organization, not a government organization. If you were the charity giver, what would be your guidelines for giving charity?
How about government assistance?
If someone is eligible to receive government assistance (WIC, food stamps, medical assistance, housing assistance, etc...) but is able to manage without the assistance by tightening their belts and living extremely frugally, should they feel guilty about taking the assistance? Should they turn it down? If you could manage without assistance but the assistance would give you some breathing room and you were eligible, would you accept it?
Do you think people should be frugal with their government assistance? Meaning- if you were spending 75 dollars a week to feed your family before you were eligible for assistance, and now you get food stamps that are 150 dollars per week (I'm making up numbers here), should you start buying non frugal things, luxuries that you didn't allow yourself to buy, or should you be as frugal with government assistance as you are with your own money?
I'd love to hear your answers, and I'll give my opinion after hearing some responses.
But even though I don't have a full post written out, there's been something on my mind lately and I wanted to hear your opinion on it. There's no right or wrong answer, but I'd love to hear a debate in the comments section about your thoughts on this.
Charity.
It's a good thing. It's helping people out that are struggling.
But really- who is deserving of charity?
Is the person (A) who has no job and no source of income, but has no physical problems that preclude him/her from working, and decides that it's easier to be a beggar on the street than to get a job, worthy of receiving charity?
Is the person (B) who doesn't make a lot of money, but makes stupid monetary decisions and is wasteful, and therefore can't keep afloat worthy of charity?
Is a person (C) who does manage to keep afloat by going without things that everyone else has, and living an extreme, extreme frugal lifestyle, and manages to build up a little savings even so- worthy of charity?
What if persons B and C both make the same money, but C makes sacrifices to make ends meet, and B just lives above his means, who is more worthy/deserving of charity?
When I say charity, I mean an individual or a private organization, not a government organization. If you were the charity giver, what would be your guidelines for giving charity?
How about government assistance?
If someone is eligible to receive government assistance (WIC, food stamps, medical assistance, housing assistance, etc...) but is able to manage without the assistance by tightening their belts and living extremely frugally, should they feel guilty about taking the assistance? Should they turn it down? If you could manage without assistance but the assistance would give you some breathing room and you were eligible, would you accept it?
Do you think people should be frugal with their government assistance? Meaning- if you were spending 75 dollars a week to feed your family before you were eligible for assistance, and now you get food stamps that are 150 dollars per week (I'm making up numbers here), should you start buying non frugal things, luxuries that you didn't allow yourself to buy, or should you be as frugal with government assistance as you are with your own money?
I'd love to hear your answers, and I'll give my opinion after hearing some responses.
I think if someone can get by WITHOUT govt assistance, they should. There are FAR TOO MANY people who are perfectly capable of being contributing members of society that milk the system for all they can!! At least in the USA ANYWAY. and yes, I do think people should be frugal with the Govt Assistance they receive! You should NOT be able to buy junk food(pop/soda, chips, sweets) with foodstamps!!' you are not entitled to treats on the Govt dime! If you think you are, then go out & get a J.O.B.
ReplyDeleteEventually the Govt will go broke shelling out for all thes generational welfare families. I've been paying into Social Security for over 22 yrs....it will be broke before I eve get a chance to collect what I've put into it!
Our welfare system in the USA needs an Overhaul!!!